Monday, February 27, 2012

Audio: Aqeeda Part 5 by Sheikh Abu Talha Malkawi

Listen to an excellent series of circles delivered by Sheikh Abu Talha on the topic of the Islamic Aqeeda (belief).  These were delivered some years back but are still relavent today.

Download file

Q&A: Zakat on crops?

The following is a translation from an Arabic Q&A.


It came in p. 97, at the end of the third line in the book of the Draft Constitution, Volume II the following text: "As regards the words of Allah, The Almighty: (And give its due right on its day of harvest), Al-An'aam, verse 141. Zakat did not come in this verse for it is revealed in Makkah, while the Zakat was enacted in the Madinah; and that is why it mentioned the Pomegranate which there is no zakat of one tenth on it... "

The book of Funds mentioned in p. 161, first line after the title: "Zakat on crops and fruits is obliged by the Qur'an and Sunnah; as for the Qur'an it is by His (swt) saying: "And give its due right on its day of harvest", Al-An'aam, verse 141.

The question is how we use the verse as evidence for the obligation of the Zakat, though we say that the verse does not include Zakat, as it came in the Draft Constitution. In other words, how we make it evidence for obliging zakat upon crops and fruits? Should not we publish correction about it?


What is stated in the Draft is more detailed than that which is mentioned in the Funds; and they however conform to each other:

The verse of "And give its due right on its day of harvest" is not valid to use to infer the Zakat in generality, i.e. to say there is zakat in all of crops, because it is a Makkiyyah verse, where the Zakat has not been enacted then.

However, there are others who use it as evidence, but not general in every crop, rather it is used as mentioned in the Draft Constitution:

A - Regarding that which is cropped,

B - And that it is summed (mujmal) that needs elaboration.

Accordingly, it was stated in the Draft: "If we assumed they fall within the zakat, then this applies on that which is harvested, because the pomegranate is not harvested, thus it came in summed (mujmal) form, and the ahadith came to mention that zakat is taken from the harvested crops, which are the wheat and barley. The ahadith added other two types, which are of dates and raisins. In any case, as long as the verse has been revealed in Makkah, where the Zakat was not enacted yet, then this is sufficient to reject its use as evidence. "

In other words, it is not used as evidence for the Zakat on all crops, because the context of the text lacks its use for reasoning the Zakat of all crops; but it can be referred to in that which is harvested, and that it is of summed (mujmal) form where the ahadith elaborated it.

As for the Funds, it was mentioned as summed (mujmal), like quoting the summed (mujmal) hadith in Zakat "Tenths (Zakat) are taken from what is irrigated by rivers and rain ...". The summed evidences are not alone enough, because they need elaboration (bayaan); and their elaboration comes in the ahadith that made zakat only from wheat, barley, dates, raisins, and they have to reach a certain amount (nisaab) ... etc..

Thus, it is not allowed to use as evidence that which is summed (mujmal) unless followed by elaboration (bayaan). Therefore, they were mentioned in the Funds as summed, and then they were followed by the elaborating ahadith. So, it said in the Funds:

"Zakat of crops and fruits are obliged by Qur'an and Sunnah. As for the Qur'an, it is His (swt) saying "And give its due right on its day of harvest", [Al-An'aam, 141].As for the Sunnah it is the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "There is no Zakat in less than of five wasaqs", agreed upon it ...End quote.

After all, had it been explained in the Funds as it were in the Draft it would have been better ... However, I do not see a need for its correction, on condition that it is understood as detailed in the Draft.

4th Rabee' II 1432


Friday, February 24, 2012

Audio: Hot Coals - Difficult Times

Download file

Political Concepts: The Middle East Issue

The following is an extract of the english translation of an excellent book entitled 'Political Concepts' by Hizb ut-Tahrir which was published in the Arab world in 2005 prior to the Arab spring. 

The Middle East (ME) Issue

It is an issue related to Islam and its danger; the strategic location and its control over the communications between Europe, Africa and Asia; the Jewish entity and its being the first line for defending the Western interests; colonialism and its material benefits particularly the oil. Thus, such an issue that is related to Islam, the strategic location, the Jewish state, colonialism and oil, is indeed a very important one, not only for the people of the region and Muslims, but rather for the entire world.

As in regards with Islam, it was and still forms the greatest danger to America and the West. Besides, the region of the Middle East is considered the natural departure point for the Islamic da’wa to the world. Therefore, it was not strange that America looked at Islam as the prime and sole enemy to her after the collapse of socialism. She used the slogans of terrorism, religious extremism and fundamentalism as a cover to her campaign against Islam and Muslims in this region. She tries, using her utmost to distance the political Islamic movements from authority through using the styles of suppression, repression, torture and containment, which her puppet governments in the region follow. Bush has declared this new crusade war openly against Muslims. John Ashcroft, the American minister of justice said: “Sincerely, terrorism is hidden in Islam itself and not only in some of those that embrace it”. He also claimed that Allah encourages terrorism in the Quran.

As in regards with the strategic location of the ME and its control over the communications, this results from its existence at the crossroad of the old three continents: Africa, Europe and Asia, besides it controls over the straits of Gibraltar, Bosporus, Aden, Hormuz, and the Suez Canal, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea and the Gulf. This is besides its being a crossroads of the raw materials and goods between the three continents.

Its strategic importance used to form a critical point between the Western and Soviet camps before the détente. This is because the ME forms the western belt in the military ring imposed against the past SU. This western belt was the first line of the west for defending ME and Africa in the face of the SU. Therefore, military bases were built in the ME including nuclear bases. There were also many attempts to connect the ME states to military alliances. Besides, many airports and highways were built in it; so it had great strategic importance. After the agreement between the two superpowers in 1961, it lost its military importance. Therefore, the issue of military alliances in it was ignored, and the nuclear bases were removed. The two superpowers worked together ahead in removing the British military bases, and succeeded in removing the bases in Eden, Libya and east of Suez Canal; besides they tried to remove its bases in Cyprus. Thus, at that time the ME ceased to have a strategic importance. However, after the end of the cold war and the elimination of the SU, the ME restored its strategic importance, particularly for America in facing Russia and Europe. So, America started again to build military bases in the gulf, occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, and declared Bahrain, and then Pakistan and Kuwait as strategic allies.

She recently considered it as the front line for defending the security of USA; and she prepared a plan for it, which she called (The Great ME Plan). Then she adjusted it to (The ME and African Plan). She presented it to the G8 summit that was held in June 2004 in Sea Island area.

However, the important location of the ME that extends from Morocco at the Atlantic Ocean in the west to Iran and Iraq on the gulf in the east, and from Turkey in the north to the Great African desert in the south, i.e. it includes all the Arab states in addition to Turkey and Iran, this important location made it a target for the colonialists and an object for the desires of the ambitious, due to its huge importance in the issue of transportation and communication, not only at this time, but even since the crusader wars till today.

As regarding the Jewish entity planted in Palestine it became the heart of the ME issue and it became a cause for instability, not in the ME but also in the entire world, as acknowledged by the west itself that agreed 90% of the problems of the Islamic world that annoys the west returns to the problem of the existence of the Jewish state in Palestine, i.e. in the heart of the Islamic world.

As regarding its colonial importance it is the one that caused its affliction and eliminated it as a great state and a global force. It also changed it to a western colony where the western states compete in it over colonialism and hegemony. This is because the oil that exists in it is more than half of the world reserves; besides the raw materials that exist in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran and others form a huge wealth that represents 10 times the wealth of Europe and America, put together. This is the reason of the competition and struggle between the states over it, where the wars of America in the gulf are tangible evidence to that.

Getting these four angles together in one issue, namely; Islam, the oil, the strategic location and (Israel) is enough to make of this issue the most dangerous and most complicated one; to the point it became the focus and the prime issue. So, it is more complicated than what the great states can solve, and more than they can understand. Therefore, it is a thorny issue and hugely complicated, which the great states have no solution for; and it will not be solved except by the establishment of the Islamic State (Khilafah).

The ME was under the authority and control of Islam and the Islamic state till mid 18th century. Since Berlin conference, i.e. since late 18th century the great European states started their attempt to invade it. So, each of France, England and Italy attacked it; and the attack was repeated till the Islamic state was demolished through the destruction of the Ottoman state and the complete removal of the Khilafah. Thus, the ME settled down under colonialism, authority and influence of England. Its influence covered all of its states even those that were not colonised like Turkey and Afghanistan. France had only a little part, which was confined to the northern part of Sham known as Syria, including its south west coast known as Lebanon. This situation continued till the end of World War II, where France was thrown away from it, and the British colonialism changed into a new style through concentrating its division and giving a name of a state for each part of it. Therefore, World War II ended while the entire Middle East was considered a western colony, actually a British colony. Thus, it was considered a part of the free world and part of the western camp, where the eastern camp had no presence in it. Two factors helped England to solely colonise the ME: The first is the political, economical and international weakness of France. So it could not match and compete with England regarding colonialism in the ME. The second is the insistence of America to follow an isolationist policy after the World War I; so England acted unilaterally in colonising the ME throughout the 19th century and until the mid of 20th century. However, after 1950 the situation differed and radically changed, because colonial struggle started between England and America, which led to what the ME witnessed from wars, military coups, manoeuvres and conspiracies. The struggle went on ups and downs till America managed to take the initiative in the ME, where England became so weak that it could not face America openly. It however, acted stubbornly for preserving as much as it could of its colonies; and it endeavoured to have even a partial presence in the region through associating America in her plans as it did in the occupation of Iraq.

Hence, it can be said that the struggle over the ME after World War II was effectively concentrated between America and England as follows:

The American and British policies were based on partnerships regarding the ME after the World War II. So, the two states used to meet and review their policies and coordinate their plans and styles. England continued allowing America to devour some benefits particularly in terms of the oil of the Arab Peninsular. It also remained to please her at some times; but it used to face her over whatever it considered it harmful to its interests.

When the issue of the Jews in Palestine was raised America had the view of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine in order to use it a means for colonising the region. England at that time did not take a decision regarding establishing a Jewish state. It was hesitant between making Palestine an entity controlled by Jews and having a Jewish state. It wanted to link that to its colonisation of the rest of the Arab countries. Therefore, it did not decide the matter, so it transferred the issue to the UN. When the UN decided establishing a Jewish state under the pressure from America, England remained silent and left the issue for the future time to decide whether the region can accept the presence of a Jewish state amongst Muslims, or this Islamic body will spit it out. Its policy towards the Jewish state continued on the basis of waiting for the decision of the future.

As regarding America, it worked hard to concentrate (Israel) and eliminate anything that could obstruct this task. England used to oppose her over this issue but secretly. So, this created severe struggle between England and America over the presence of the Jewish state.

Moreover, America tried to draw oil pipelines across Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea, but England obstructed her plan. Because it was old in the region, it was able to influence all the rulers of the region for they were its agent. Therefore America found that the only means to change the situation of the region was to apply the same policy she used in South America, which is bringing in military rulers and undertaking military coups. So, it carried out the first military coup in Syria through Husni Za’im who gave concession to America for drawing an oil pipeline, where the pipeline was drawn and thus she overcame the problem. However, England noticed that America wanted to colonise and take the region from it; so it started to ferociously resist that by the political styles and manoeuvres and through the people of the region.

After the military coup of Husni Za’im, the ferocity of the opposition by England to all the American projects, and the change of secret struggle between the two states to almost an open one, the diplomatic representatives of America in the ME noticed the threat against the military and economic interests of America in the region. They considered the continuous link between the American policy and the British policy meant that America would remain, as it was before World War II, just a tool used by England. Where it would only give her a small bait to keep her in the region for defending it, but it deprives her of all the resources of the region, and keeps the entire region under the control of England alone. The authorized American diplomats in the Arab group having noticed that realised the necessity of introducing fundamental amendments to the direction of Washington policy, and the need of making new adjustments. So, they decided to use cooperation with the people of the region as a basis for the development and improvement of such a policy. They however found themselves at the same time before a large set of problems, in addition to the presence of (Israel), and the great hatred and grudge Muslims carry towards it. Therefore, they found it necessary to address these problems before starting serious thinking and before starting to change the region from a British basis to an American basis. So, they called for holding a conference amongst them to discuss this subject. In November 1950 they held their first conference in Istanbul. This was chaired by Mr George Magi, a deputy in the American State Department responsible for the affairs of the ME and North Africa. This conference lasted for five consecutive days. They discussed in this secret conference the most important political, strategic and economic conditions of this region. Their opinion settled that it is not possible for the American policy to be linked to the British policy if America really wanted to change the ME into an American basis and use the cooperation with the people of the region as one of the styles to change this region. They used the rejection of Syria at the time of the president Shukri Quwwatli to give concession for drawing an oil pipeline, and taking that concession through the coup carried out by Husni Za’im as tangible evidence to the validity of their view. Added to that the British carried out another coup at the same year of 1949 by Al-Hinnawi who removed Husni Za’im and thus Syria returned back to the control of British. All of that supported their view that the American policy must be detached from the British policy if America wanted to work in the region. This conference is considered one of the most important tools to direct the America diplomacy in the Arabic field. It presented recommendations to each of the White House, State of Department, Pentagon and the Marine. These recommendations were presented after an important introduction, as follows:

The experience of the recent World War II has proved that the ME is a fundamental basis, where all the factors exist necessary for waging a war against the SU. There is no chance of success in contemplating an attack against the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus and depriving the machine of Soviet war from its richest oil revenues through military cooperation with Turkey only. It is rather necessary to have organised air bases in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, on condition that Iraq and Egypt change to become a big depot that secures supplies of men, arms and provisions to any plan of offense that aims at surrounding and sabotaging the Soviet oil fields in Baku and the Caucasus, in general.

Moreover, the military campaigns against Greece, Sicily and Italy during the entire period from 1941 to 1944 showed beyond any doubt the importance of the ME in providing and supplying such type of decisive military operations that secured victory for the war of the allies forces and containment of the enemy armies inside the European fortress.

This introduction ended with presenting recommendations that were coined by the agreement of all the delegates in form of four recommendations:

First: Detachment from the British policy in every matter related to the pending issues between it and the Arab world.

Second: Using the support of Arabs’ national demands as a basis of an American policy in the ME.

Third: Support of Egypt regarding its demands from England, and encouraging a similar movement in Iraq.

Fourth: Abstain from the constant diplomatic and economic support to (Israel) and encourage the UN to executing the project of dividing Palestine into two states, an Arab and a Jewish, besides executing the resolutions of the Security Council regarding the settlement of Arab refugees on the basis of their return to their homes and compensating those who do not want to return.

It is said that they gave a special recommendation regarding Egypt, where they advised that it is necessary that America takes Egypt from England and expels England from it. This is besides founding a strong authority in it that leads the entire region, because history proved that Egypt is the gate of the ME.

These recommendations were submitted to the ruling authority in the USA, where the Democratic Party was in power at that time, who were used to flattering the British. Truman was the president of USA, and he came to power supported by two factors: first is the Jewish influence, and second is the British influence amongst the American circles. Besides, Truman was linked with many obligations towards England and towards the Jews as well. Therefore, these decisions were not given the attention the diplomats hoped for them, though they were given some attention at the time of Eisenhower.

However, the American became active in the ME after the mentioned conference of the diplomats. So, America undertook a brave attempt to make peace between the Arab states and (Israel) and to expel England from Jordan and Iraq. The American diplomats made contacts with King Abdullah and negotiated with him for reaching a deal with him. The deal is summarized that Abdullah turned away from England and instead went along with America. In return, America gave him a free hand for annexing Iraq and Hejaz to him, thus making a state made of Jordan, Iraq and Hejaz, where he annexed Syria and Lebanon to it after that. In return for that he would conclude peace with (Israel), and America would give him the necessary aid and loans for reviving this new state economically. King Abdullah agreed to that and started working to realise this plan. He went to Iraq where he met with Abdulilah and Nuri Said, discussed the matter with them and asked them to work with him. However, these two officials made contact with the British ambassador in Baghdad and disclosed to him the plans of king Abdullah. The British prevented them from working with him; therefore they did not accept his offer but did not stop him, thus leaving the matter pending. The king returned back to Jordan and invited Riyad Sulh (PM of Lebanon) to work with him and help him in the plan. Riyad Sulh accepted that; for it seems he had already changed to the Americans. So, the British killed Riyad Sulh in Amman on his way to the airport while returning to Beirut. One week after that king Abdullah was killed in Al-Quds, inside Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa due to an open conspiracy planned by John Glubb to kill him. The American ambassador in Amman warned him openly, one day before his killing of the conspiracy; and thus this plan died down. In that year, 1952 American presidential elections took place where the Republic Party won the post, manifested in Eisenhower. He assumed authority at the beginning of 1953, where struggle between England and America intensified, because Eisenhower was known of giving preference to the American high interest in its military and international forms over the Jewish and British pressure. Therefore, the struggle between America and England became ferocious, where America managed to take Egypt from England and then expelled it from Egypt. Earlier to that America orchestrated a coup in Syria where she brought to power her agent Adib Sheeshakli. Thus, Egypt and Syria became with America. Since that date all Arab states became an open field for Anglo-American struggle. Many actions took place in it that made it like a ball that moves from America’s court to England’s court, and back again from England’s court to America’s court, and so on. This was manifested in many actions that covered Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Most of these actions were in Syria, as being the heart of the region, and it generally influences all Arab countries. Therefore, many political actions happened in Syria, most prominent of which was the frequency of military coups. After killing Husni Za’im in a way that revealed the grudge of England against him, and once his authority ended, England started to strengthen authority in Syria on a democratic basis, and to work for annexing it to Iraq as a step towards the creation of the Fertile Crescent. Thus, elections were conducted in Syria; a constitution was put for the country, and the People’s Party and National Party dominated the authority and declared in their programs unification with Iraq. America tried to obstruct the efforts of England; but it could not find an opportunity for achieving that except after assuming the authority by Adib Sheeshakli, who initially controlled the authority from behind the screens, and then openly, where he declared himself a president of the republic. Thus, Syria turned to America till 1954 when the British agents, and by the support of Iraq removed Sheeshakli; after which Syria returned to England and parliamentary rule. At that moment England started to promote the Baghdad Pact in the region.

By 1955 the region entered into violent and ferocious Anglo-American struggle. America started to use Egypt for playing the game of liberation, unity and socialism. Abdul Nasser started to plunge in struggle against the British in the name of America. So, by direction from America he concluded a deal for buying a big quantity of weapons from the communist camp, and he implied to the people he bought these weapons for attacking and eliminating (Israel). This created a huge reverberation in the entire Arab people. He also adopted Arab nationalism, and declared Egypt as an Arab state and recorded that in the constitution of the Egyptian state. He also started to call for social justice and unity. Such actions made the Arab people rally behind him, and he thus became one of the leaders of the Arab world. This was helped by the style used by America to attack England and to create confusion amongst the people of the region. So, despite the bitter enmity between America and the Soviet Union at that time, she used some styles to attract Russia into the region and make of it an international element in the region and an international factor used against England. Despite the fight of America against communism, she persuaded Jamal Abdul Nasser, the ruler of Egypt of socialism and call for it. Thus, the fact that Egypt purchased weapons from the communist camp was a factor that introduced Russia to the region. Besides, the call of Abdul Nasser to nationalism was a fundamental factor in reviving Arab nationalism after it had almost died. His adoption of socialism that developed from social justice was an effective factor in the spread of left-wing politics and making it dominate the public opinion in the region. Egypt’s adoption of attacking the foreign alliances, particularly the Baghdad Pact had great effect in removing the doubt of Nasser’s subordination to America, taking in consideration that he used to attack American colonialism. Therefore, there was no more doubt in entire Arab people that Jamal Abdul Nasser was the great saviour that was sent by Allah to this nation for delivering it from colonialism. So, all the people were devoted to him, except one group that tried to disclose him and attack him. However, their work did not make any effect, whatsoever; so he continued to have full control over the public opinion. Due to this control, the agents of England in Jordan and Iraq, as rulers, became unstable. The agents of England in Syria and Lebanon became in a very unfortunate popular position. Thus, the situation was fertile for America to work for the elimination of the British; though the region was not aware that such actions were for bringing America into the region to replace England. The region should have instead realised that their duty was to eliminate the colonialism of both states: America and England, rather than replace one of them with the other.

In this period of time some internal developments happened in Syria that were induced by the rally of the people behind Abdul Nasser. In that period the Baath Party merged with the Socialist Arab Party, which created presence in the army for the Baath party. The two parties raised the slogan of (unity, freedom and socialism) that gave them influence on authority, which they took part in. The two parties found in Abdul Nasser and his call an opportunity for making the people rally behind them and for taking obvious steps towards unity and socialism which they wanted. Thus, Syria came to be dominated by Baath party, as a way for avoiding its harm, and for fear of its imagined popularity amongst people. Therefore, Syria was with the British in reality, but it was dominated by the two ideas of unity and socialism, which had influence on the public opinion. Then Abdul Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, which was followed by the trio aggression against Egypt that pushed the popularity of Abdul Nasser over the moon. Therefore, the British agents were scared from showing themselves on the political theatre, and their voice died down to the point that they were hardly noticed.

In August 1957 some army officers met and discussed the authority in Syria, in terms of its orientation towards the west and the infiltration of the western influence in it. So, they decided to hold the authority, but keep ruling, i.e. the president and ministers in their posts, while the army officers run the affairs and discharge ruling matters. Thus, they actually detached Syria from western colonialism. Before its detachment from the western colonialism, Syria was actually with the British, though apparently it was linked with America because the dominating thoughts were those promoted by Abdul Nasser, namely, freedom, socialism and unity. This is besides Baath party, which had the prime word in public opinion presented itself as a friend or ally to Abdul Nasser. Therefore, detachment of Syria from the west was directed against America, although in reality it was directed against the British more than the Americans. Despite that the British remained silent about this detachment and did nothing but America went crazy, and started to work with apparent nervousness for hitting the army officers and for restoring it to the domain of the west. Many attempts were undertaken in this regard but they all failed. After the failure of America in solving the problem, Abdul Nasser moved to do that. He sent Mahmud Riyadh to Syria, where he worked for making a union between Egypt and Syria, by which Egypt controls authority in Syria. Through this approach America held the rein in Syria, and she started working to expel England from Iraq and Lebanon. By 1958 the revolution in Lebanon broke out followed by the revolution of Iraq. Thus, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt became in the hand of America, leaving only Jordan for the British. Abdul Nasser continued chasing England in Jordan; so it was about to be eliminated from the entire region. However, England did not despair and continued to work from its base, namely Jordan. By 1961 England had some forces that worked on its side in Syria. So, all the political forces, People’s Party, National Party and Baath Party (i.e., Baath and Arab Socialist parties) worked together against Abdul Nasser and against the unity. Thus, Syria was separated from Egypt, and the British agents assumed the authority there. America also removed Abdul Karim Qasim from the authority in Iraq after he turned away from her and worked with the communists. This resulted in an American regime controlled by the Baath party, which started to work to change the situation in Syria and Jordan for annexing them to Iraq. England became scared of that; so its agents in Damascus held a forged coup, and made Baath just a cover for the authority. In 1971, after Hafiz Asad went to Egypt and joined the four-state union he returned to Syria with a different face. He was convinced there that he can become a president to Syrian republic though he is from the Nusairiyya Alawi sect. It seemed at that time America was behind it, and it would support him as long as he worked with her. Moreover, Egypt would make its groups there support him; besides Egypt and America would work to remove the obstacles before his appointment as a president to the republic because he is an Alawi. This is because people in Syria would not accept an Alawi rather a Muslim as their president. Thus, America prepared the matter and eased the difficulties after he agreed to go along with her; so the execution of the matter started. He started to work gradually to become the president of the republic. He visited the north of Syria and conducted contacts with the masses. When he discovered that the people agree with the ruler without an apparent opposition to that, he embarked on that practically. So, Hafiz Asad was nominated for the presidency post, and the day of 12/3/1971 was assigned for referendum. Hafiz Asad became a president of Syria after that, where Syria fell again in the claws of America, and she is still till today.

These are some examples of the Anglo-American struggle in Syria, which is the most prominent aspect of it. As regarding other Arab states, Jordan remained under the control of British because 2/3 of its people are Palestinians; many of them depend on UN rations and the salaries of their sons who work outside Jordan. The other third are Bedouins from east Jordan; many of them depend on the salaries of their sons in the army. Therefore, America did not find the fertile soil she found in Syria. Thus, there was no political action in Jordan that manifests international struggle except the demonstrations that took place against the Baghdad Pact, and the fabricated coup attempt by King Hussein in 1957 in which he forged to throw some of Abdul Nasser’s agents outside the country. Therefore, Jordan is not considered to have important political actions related to political struggle, though it is one of the most important places over which there is struggle between America and England due to the amazing wealth it has under the ground and under the Dead Sea water.

As regarding Iraq, despite that Abdul Salam Arif who succeeded the Baa’thists in power had clung to Abdul Nasser’s heels the British agents from the politicians and army officers found opportunity to move. So, with little effort they controlled the army and the economic capabilities. Thus, Iraq returned back to the influence of the British. Though America returned back to Iraq at the time of Abdul Rahman Arif, but the people of the British, the Baa’thists and others dominated the authority in 1968, where the influence of the British in Iraq continued till 9/4/2003 when Iraq fell down, together with the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Baa’th power in Iraq. Since then Iraq fell under the American occupation.

As regarding Egypt; since Abdul Nasser held its power it became the major American base, and it still continues till today the important America base. There were no important political actions in it that can be part of the struggle except that which happened little after Abdul Nasser’s death. At that period there were three factors that could return Egypt back to England, which were:

Firstly: There was a weak regime in it that was unable to protect itself, not to mention filling the vacuum left by Abdul Nasser.

Secondly: Some movements emerged in Egypt within the army and the people that called for war (against Israel) and expelling the (communist) Russians and called for complete liberation.

Thirdly: There were contacts between the British and Egypt that started with the visit to Egypt by Douglas Hume, foreign minister of England, for attending the funeral of Abdul Nasser. This visit was followed by many of the British through Libya. Then these contacts became official, not only by the visit of Mohammad Hasanain Haykal, but also through official memorandums, and requesting from Egypt openly to strengthen the relations between it and England. Thus, the return of Egypt to England was only a matter of time rather than efforts, due to the unstable position of Sadat at the beginning of his authority. However, America managed to strengthen Sadat in power; and she forged the 1973 war to pave the way for peace with (Israel). This war made of Sadat a hero and helped him to take the initiative. Thus, international struggle inside Egypt disappeared, and it continued to be the most important and major American base till today.

As regarding the states of North Africa, Morocco entered under the American control when it got its independence at the time of Mohammad al-Khamis. Algeria came under American influence through Ahmad bin Bella. However, this did not last long, because Mohammad al-Khamis died and his son Al-Hasan ascended to the throne and moved with the British. Regarding Algeria, the British concocted a coup against Bin Bella with the help of King Al-Hasan and through Mohammad Khayder. So, they attracted to them Tahir Zubiri and Abu Madyan who undertook a coup that removed Ahmad Ben Bella. Thus, America was removed from Algeria, and England got the influence there. As regarding Libya and Tunisia, America could not enter any one of them, and nor generate any political actions in any one of them. Rather the British influence remained stable in them, and they did not take part in the Anglo-American struggle. As regarding Yemen and Gulf states, they all, to the exclusion of Saudi Arabia submit to the British influence. There is no struggle in the proper sense in them except in Yemen, where the British influence there is exposed to harassments from America, together with ups and downs. In Saudi Arabia, America managed to attract some the members of the royal family there, while England still has its people in the royal family as well. The Anglo-American struggle in it goes on via the personalities of the family. When Fahd bin Abdulaziz assumed the authority for example, Saudi Arabia became to proceed in the domain of the American policy. If this situation changed, where one of the people of England ascended to the throne, like Abdullah, the current Crown Prince, Hejaz and Najd will return to the British influence, and so on. America however tries since the explosions of 11/9/2001 to cement its influence in Saudi Arabia away from the fluctuation of the Royal family members, through changing the model of authority in it. The news reports show this is under study by the policy makers in Washington.

The Anglo-American struggle in the Arab countries continued ferociously during the fifties and sixties of the last century. The Palestinian issue remained the heart of this struggle. The British concluded in 1964 that there is no possibility for the region to accept a foreign state inside it, and the experiment of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine is a failure. They found it is better to establish a secular state on the model of the Lebanese state by reviving the project of the White Paper which England issued in 1939 and made it the basis for the settlement of the issue. It reviewed this with the Jewish leaders who were convinced of the idea. Bourqeebah, the leader of Tunisia undertook a visit to Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, where he presented the mentioned British plan to the Arab leaders and some of the Palestinian people. He took their agreement to the plan and thus England started its attempt for executing it. However, America through Abdul Nasser managed to frustrate the plan by its fierce opposition to it.

This shows that the ME issue was supposed to be, from an international aspect an issue of struggle between the people of the region and the colonialist states as it happened with America when she expelled colonialism and formed the USA. And as it also happened with China after World War II, where it expelled the Japanese colonialism and foreign influence, and established a communist state of a distinguished situation in the world. This is natural for every colonised country that has international and local capabilities to liberate itself from foreign influence and develop itself into a state of international weight. However, unfortunately this was not the case with the ME issue. It was rather an issue of severe struggle between America and England over the colonialism and exploitation of the region, so as to create new tight restrictions that prevent the people of the region from even thinking about liberation and emancipation. Struggle between America and England continued in the seventies and eighties of the last century, but with less force.

With the collapse of the SU at the beginning of the nineties of last century, and after the success of the American invasion to Iraq, besides her control over Kuwait and the Gulf region, the balance in the world changed. America started to draw a new map in the region, where the British would be a secondary player in the region. They were unable to struggle with America; and their level and weight declined. So, they were forced to work by using weak scheming and intrigues. They were also obliged to depend on the EU for pushing their plans that were in origin pale like the Oslo accords by which they tried to bypass America. However, America managed to change them into other courses that serve her objectives. England was also obliged to acknowledge the failure of its secular state project; so it declared its termination and accepted the American project that dictated the formation of an Arab Palestinian state besides the Jewish state. Yasser Arafat, PLO chairman officially abandoned the concept of the secular state in the Palestinian National Conference (PNC) held in Algeria in 1988. Since that date, he officially announced his acceptance of the concept of two states in all the international circles. King Hussein was also obliged to reluctantly announce the legal and administrative separation between the West Bank and the East Bank of Jordan River, and acknowledged the necessity of establishing the Palestinian State.

Thus the project of the secular state has failed officially and practically. The only project left is the American one, which is the establishment of the Palestinian state beside (Israel). This project became an international request adopted by the UN, EU, and Russia in addition to America. This international quadric group consisting of these four sides was formed to support the concept of establishing the Palestinian state beside (Israel) through the view presented by Bush -called the Road Map. America is not currently concerned, about the implementation of the Road Map (RM) because the year of 2004 was her year of elections and she wanted to use this project for only keeping the region preoccupied with it. America preoccupies the region with a project after a project till the time becomes suitable for realising her interests. At that moment the Jews will surrender to America’s command when she asks them seriously to execute her plans. This is because they cannot reject her orders if these orders were delivered seriously to them, particularly they realise America aims to fulfil her interests from these projects presented to the region, taking into consideration the interest of the Jews.

As England was forced to go along with America regarding the concept of the Palestinian state, she also went along with her in the invasion of Iraq and removal of its agent Saddam Hussein in order to preserve some of the gains that keep it as a great power by American discretion.

America also managed to push strongly her influence alongside the British influence in all the Gulf States, Yemen and Jordan. She also managed to compete with the British and French influence in North African states and Turkey. Thus, America has the true domination over the states of the ME that exceed 24 states. However, England is obliged to run behind America for obtaining some crumbs and for secretly disturbing some of her plans without daring to present openly its own plans for competing with the American plans in the region, as it used to do earlier. Therefore, it can be said that the open struggle between the two states has ended since the end of last century till today. It changed into a style of partnership and deals, crowning America as the leader of the region that has the biggest share. England, on the other side plays the role of the maid of honour so as to remain in the lime light. This is because the capability of England currently, rather the capability of the entire EU in imposing settlement plans for the region, is weak. Therefore, we see England and the EU states jump over the projects of America and work with them. Neither England and nor the EU are capable of executing anything without an effective role by America. However, we cannot say the role of England in the region has finished; rather its feeling of greatness and of being a great state still exists; besides its political shrewdness has not ceased. Moreover, its agents still have a breath, i.e. the force of England is still hidden, where it emerges from time to time.

As regarding France, it still strives to have some influence in Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon. This is due to the presence in these states of many people educated with French culture, after it completely lost its influence in Morocco and Mauritania.

(Israel) has arranged its policies in compliance with the American interests, and it merged itself completely in these interests particularly at the time of the neoconservatives in the administration of Bush, the junior. It warmly and quickly rode the current of defending these interests. So, America protected its reputation as a great regional state in the region, and considered the defence of the existence of (Israel) as the defence of America herself; and so it remained like the spoiled child that his father does not like to annoy.

The rest of the Arab rulers went to the extreme in America’s service to the point of slavery. So, they lost any credibility they had with their people, which led them to being disdained by their (western) masters who went to the extreme in humiliating them and pressing for more concessions from them. Thus, they became easy tools in the hand of their enemy, where they replace them when they wanted, as it happened with Saddam and might happen with others. Therefore, they lost the support of their people, and remained in power by the support of their masters as well at their mercy. Their position became worse, because they became exposed to gunfire from both of their people and their master, as if they are put between the hammer of their people and the anvil of their masters. Thus, the ME region is susceptible to explosion at any time and has great likelihood for the birth of the true Islamic state; the signs of its emergence are quite obvious for the people to see.

The full book is available from Revival Publications

Video: Fiqh of Accounting the Rulers by Ustadh Kamal Abu Zahra

Q&A: Punishing by fire?

The following is a translation from an Arabic Q&A.


In the book al-Muqadimmah, part 1, page 79, the third point mentioned is: "It includes the in-admissibility of such punishment which Allah (swt) has made as the punishment of the Day of Judgement, which is fire. i.e. it is not permitted to punish by burning in fire."

Then on page 82, middle of the page, it is mentioned: "The Law-giver has stipulated punishment for the culprits, and these are: killing, flogging, stoning, exile, cutting (severing), imprisonment, destruction of property, fines (penalties), libel and hot-pressing of any part of the body. It is not permitted to punishment anyone with anything other than these."

The question is, how can the impermissibility of punishing by fire be reconciled with hot-pressing?

  1. Burning by fire means to place fire on the body of the person, like lighting fire and putting the person in it, or putting his hand or foot in it...or placing any sort of fire on his body like connecting his body with an electric cable which is connected to an electric source...or similar things which emit fire and which burns him. All these are not permitted because this is punishing by fire i.e. burning the body with a fire source which has the property to burn.
  2. As for heating an iron rod or nail and holding this rod or nail to place it on the body of the person, by doing this, you are not placing a fire source on his body but you are placing something heated with fire and not connected to a fire source. This is called cauterisation and the Arabs have used it and continue to use this as medicine. They heat up a rod with fire and press it on the place which is paining etc.
  3. You may have asked that hot-pressing is also cruel. Yes indeed it is, but it is a punishment for one who deserves it, and it is clearly legitimate. However this is not burning by fire. i.e. it is not like placing a fire source on the body.
In Conclusion: Punishing by fire, i.e. placing a fire source on the body is prohibited and not allowed under the Shar'iah texts.

Regarding hot-pressing, i.e. heating an iron rod in fire and placing it on the body but not placing the fire itself on the body is permitted under the Shar'iah texts.

08 Jumada I 1431


Thursday, February 23, 2012

Some of the Crimes of Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan, and his Thugs

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Some of the Crimes of Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan, and his Thugs and how the United States and the European Union Deals with Him

Karimov and his thugs did not spare any kind of brutal torture in the prisons. He has employed torture in many prisons in Uzbekistan that are filled with innocents, particularly the shebaab from Hizb ut-Tahrir. This torture does not cease but is continuous over many years. Note that this party is a political party and does not adopt acts of violence, but limits to thoughts and this is a fact that is universally accepted.

Under this brutal torture, hundreds of the shebaab of Hizb ut-Tahrir have been martyred. The most recent of these martyrs is Salah Kadhim Dinov. He was born in 1971 in the city of Andijan. The prison police brought his blessed body from San Karad to his home in Andijan on 16/01/2012. Karimov was not satisfied with torturing to death alone. He ordered his thugs, as usual, to force the family of the martyr to bury him immediately so as not to gather many people and witness the crimes of the President of the regime You are in gardens in the highest paradise, Insha'Allah, O Salahuddin, you and your brothers. But as for the criminals Karimov and his thugs, their end will be soon, Insha'Allah, as the end of Gaddafi. This is in this life, while in the Hereafter there is hell.

Karimov and his thugs are not satisfied with only arresting the shebaab of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who are just calling to Islam to establish a Khilafah.

They are not satisfied with harsh sentences of many years. They are not satisfied with continuous torture over many years. They extend the term of imprisonment over the initial period on the basis that the prisoner violated the laws of the prison. They extend the term of imprisonment for only those who call for Islam, whilst the real criminals, those who have committed murder, theft, adultery, robbery and abuse of cannabis and heroin, do not have their terms extended but are often released early, before the end of their sentence.

Of the shebaab of Hizb ut-Tahrir who have had their imprisonment extended,

- Hamed Makho Qudrat Allah, who was born in 1973, in the prison «УЯ 64/51». After the end of his first term it was extended for a second. And after the end of the second term, they renewed it to a third term of four and a half years.

- Noor Matov Sadiq was born in 1976, in the prison "Jasliq". Term extended for an additional five years and transferred to "Zarafshan."
- Sister Merajin prison "KIN-7" in Tashkent. Three years was added to her term, after she completed her first term of six and a half years.
In this month, January 2012, the first term of imprisonment for the following young women ended:

- Ganpauh Omadh, from the city of Qraso.
- Collenarh, from the city of Khojaabad.

- Mawlodah, from the city of Paula Qubashi.

All three women have had three years added to their sentences.

RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to the family of Yasser when they were tortured,

صبراً آل ياسر فإن موعدكم الجنة

"Patience Al-Yasser, you are promised with Paradise". And we say to these young women and their sisters and brothers in the prisons of oppressors, "Patience, the State of Falsehood is in its final hour and the State of Truth's hour has come, and your status of Victory is near, inshaaAllah, with Paradise for the Hereafter, with the grace of Allah."

Karimov masterminded a plot in 1999, where he accused Hizb ut-Tahrir of trying to assassinate him to strike this party. In his prisons, until now, there are more than eight thousand of the shebaab of this party. At the time, he stood up in the parliament, beating his chest, declaring, "We are fighting the word by word, thought by thought." He also said, "We do not punish the woman nor the child". He says this yet he is not only punishing the innocent women, but every time she finishes her sentence he extend his punishment. O tyrant, no matter how long you will live your time is coming.

The majority of people in Uzbekistan live an existence of extreme poverty, despite the presence of many wealth in the country. Electricity is given to the people in cities for only 8-10 hours a day, whilst the people in villages are denied fit for three to four days at a time. Thus is regarding gas too.

The ruler deployed his spies amongst the people throughout the country to punish all those who criticizes or complains about the regime. The Andijan massacre of 2005 had a significant impact in silencing the people.

Despite this repression, despite the brutal torture that is meted out by the regime upon the people in prisons and in the society, the Western countries, have a blind eye and deaf ears for the crimes of this regime. Yet these Western countries claim that they are fighting the dictatorship, repression and are keen for freedoms and human rights. They are liars and they were exposed in their falsity when they suspended sanctions that had been imposed on this regime. The European Union had imposed sanctions on the Karimov regime in 2005, after he committed the massacre in Andijan, but they lifted the sanctions in 2009. And the US imposed sanctions in 2004 but lifted them in late 2011. The arguments of those who lift the sanctions is that they found that the sanctions are not feasible. The fact is that because their interests forced them to cancel its sanction, and not the humanitarian action or the freedom of peoples! They were afraid that China and Russia would dominate the many existing resources in the country. Germany in particular has a military base in the town of Termez, which is a strong protection for the Uzbekistan regime. When Hillary Clinton visited Uzbekistan, she said in a news conference,"We must abolish the sanctions, which had been imposed earlier, because Uzbekistan is moving towards improving the conditions of human rights."

O Muslims of Uzbekistan: Look How many of your brothers moved in Arab countries and broke the barrier of fear of the repressive unjust regimes, like that of the Karimov regime, and how they had taken down their oppressors, one of whom fled abroad, and one of whom sits in prison after he imprisoned the innocent. And such measures will be with you soon, Insha'Allah.

And be wary of inclining to the kafir hypocritical states, because they pretend they are interested in humanitarian matters, whilst they do not care, unless it coincides with their own interests..

{ويمكرون ويمكر الله والله خير الماكرين }
“They were plotting and Allâh too was planning, and Allâh is the best of the planners.”

Hizb-ut Tahrir
08 Rabi' I 1433


Sunday, February 19, 2012

Tadarruj (Gradualism) is a license to follow desires

In November 2011 as the Egyptian elections in the legislative people’s assembly were taking place one of the Islamic parties published an article titled: ‘Tadurruj (gradualism) in the implementation of the Islamic Sharee'ah...its understanding and regulations'. The author began by saying that the implementation of the Sharee'ah is an Islamic obligation which cannot be questioned however he went on to argue that the method which Islam has provided for the implementation of the Islamic rules is that of Tadarruj. Meaning that the method of Islam is to implement its rules via a step by step approach, as opposed to a radical approach of implementing Islam in a complete and comprehensive manner.

As evidence for his argument he brings the following two Aayaat of the Qur’aan which describe how Islam was not revealed in one go but was rather revealed gradually.
Allah (swt) says:
وَقُرۡءَانً۬ا فَرَقۡنَـٰهُ لِتَقۡرَأَهُ ۥ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكۡثٍ۬ وَنَزَّلۡنَـٰهُ تَنزِيلاً۬
“And (it is) a Qur'ân which We have divided (into parts), in order that you might recite it to men at intervals. And We have revealed it by stages. (in 23 years)” (Al-Israa 106)
And He (swt) says:
وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَوۡلَا نُزِّلَ عَلَيۡهِ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ جُمۡلَةً۬ وَٲحِدَةً۬‌ۚ ڪَذَٲلِكَ لِنُثَبِّتَ بِهِۦ فُؤَادَكَ‌ۖ وَرَتَّلۡنَـٰهُ تَرۡتِيلاً۬
“And those who disbelieve say: "Why is not the Qur'ân revealed to him all at once?" Thus (it is sent down in parts), that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages. (It was revealed to the Prophet SAW in 23 years.).” (Al-Furqaan 32)
He also used as evidence the report from ‘Aa'ishah (ra) in which she stated: <sura among the short suras in which is mentioned heaven and hell. After the people came to submission (Islam), the halal and the haram were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed were "Do not drink intoxicants" they would have said: "We will never leave our intoxicants." And if the first thing to be revealed were "Do not commit fornication and adultery.", they would have said: "We will never leave fornication." Verily, the following verse was revealed to Muhammad in Makka while I was a young girl playing: [No, the hour of judgement is more grievous and more bitter (i.e. than any hardships a Muslim may find in the path of Allah in this life)], and the chapters of Al-Baqarah and An-Nisaa (which contain extensive rulings on the halal and the haram) were only revealed while I was with him (saw) as his wife>> (Al-Bukhaari).
It does not require a deep or thorough investigation of these evidences to see that they do not relate to the subject at hand and that all three relate to the subject of the revelation of the Qur'aan and not the subjecting of implementing the Sharee'ah or ruling. They discuss how the Qur'an was not revealed at once but rather in stages and that this was done in order to strengthen the hearts of the believers. In relation to the statement of ‘Aa'ishah (ra) then they try to infer that the Halaal and Haraam are not implemented until later however it is important to note that this is not a Sharee'ah evidence related to the actions of the servants of Allah as this is a statement from ‘Aa'ishah which does not contain a command from the Messenger of Allah (saw) whether in terms of an act that he did, a statement that he made or something that he consented and was silent about and only the Fi'l (act), Qawl (statement) and Taqreer (consent) of the Nabi (saw) is considered as being from the Sunnah and a valid sharee'ah evidence.
Other arguments that are brought and are claimed to support their argument of Tadurruj and the permission to join non-Islamic governments include the treaty of Hudaibiyah and the taking of a position in a non-Islamic government by Yousuf (as). Again both of these are proofs holding no credibility and it is not difficult to show their falsehood. In regards to the treaty of Hudaibiyah then it has been quite shamefully claimed that the Messenger of Allah (saw) took a weak position and compromised the strong position that Islam deserved. They say this in regards to the clause that he (saw) agreed that no Muslim would be allowed to travel from Makkah to Al-Madinah without the permission of its people whereas anyone who wished to leave from Al-Madinah and return to Makkah could do so without conditions. The Sahaabah (rah) did not understand this clause at first and when questioned, he (saw) explained that he is the Messenger of Allah (saw) and that he will not disobey Him Ta'Aalaa. This clause ended up giving greater strength to the Muslims and their Da'wah but the Sahaabah did not have the foresight to comprehend it at the time but the Messenger (saw) made the issue clear by stating that this was from the revelation from Allah and that he was fulfilling what had been commanded to him. So this is an example of the Messenger (saw) implementing the command of Allah Subhaanahu and I ask Him Ta'Aalaa to forgive those who out of ignorance have attempted to claim that the Messenger of Allah (saw) compromised the Deen and has given them the license to do likewise. In addition it is well known that the conditions of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah only gave strength to the Muslims and their cause. The condition mentioned above allowed the Da'wah in Makkah to become stronger, for the trade of Makkah to be disrupted by those who had embraced Islaam but were unable to emigrate to Al-Madinah and of course no Muslim ever wished to leave Al-Madinah to return to Makkah. In fact it was this treaty that allowed the Muslims to go on and remove the enemy of Khaibar who had been planning to join forces with the Quraish of Makkah against the Muslims prior to the treaty. In sum this treaty was key to the spread of Islaam and its authority in the Arabian peninsular and to the peaceful and overwhelming conquest of Makkah itself after only two years. Indeed the significance of this treaty and the great victory for Islaam that resulted in it was so great that Allah (swt) mentioned in His Qur'aan Al-Kareem in a Soorah that has been named after this victory when he says:
ان فتحنا لك فتحا مبينا
“Verily we have provided you with a clear victory “ (Al-Fath 1)
In relation to Yousuf (as) then it is well known that Allah (swt) has revealed different Sharee'ah rules to different Prophets and nations.
Allah (swt) said:
لِكُلٍّ۬ جَعَلۡنَا مِنكُمۡ شِرۡعَةً۬ وَمِنۡهَاجً۬ا‌ۚ
“To each among you, We have prescribed a law (Sharee’ah) and a clear way” (Al-Maa’idah 48)
This Aayah clearly states that Allah revealed different Sharee’ah’s to different peoples and as an example it was permitted as mentioned in Sourah Yousuf for people to prostrate to others whereas this has been clearly forbidden by the revelation that came to the last and seal of prophets Muhammad (saw). Despite this what they claim about Yousuf (as) is a lie upon a Prophet of Allah. How is it possible for some to accuse someone of such status to whom Allah (swt) bears witness, and who was not accused by anyone that met him? There is nothing, not even a single indication in the Qur'an - that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King. There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except the one that is; "They (Yusuf's brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime).'" [Yousuf: 75]. This rule was according to the Sharee'ah of Ya'qub (as). There is no indication to any knowledge that he ruled by something other than what Allah (swt) had revealed. Their nonsensical argument has come from the following ayah: "He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it." [Yousuf: 76]. This ayah, when it is explained with the correct tafseer (interpretation), then this attempt on casting doubt upon a infallible (mas'um) Prophet of Allah is removed and their claims fall apart. In fact it was Yousuf (as) who said whilst in prison as mentioned in the Quran, "The rule is for none but Allah." [Yousuf: 40]
So in brief these are the justifications which have been given in attempt to provide a Sharee'ah justification for the gradual implementation of Islam however in my title I stated that Tadarruj is a license to follow desires. The reason I have said this is because Tadurruj has been the justification for the so called Islamic groups to enter into the corrupt political systems which were laid down by and inherited from the western colonial powers.
I ask does Tadurruj permit you:
1) To claim that the punishment systems are outdated and not applicable today?
2) Or to say that Christians and Muslims do not have a dispute in regards to their Aqueedah or question that the Christians in Egypt are indeed Kuffar (disbelievers)?
3) Or to attend a Christian service and shake hands with the Egyptian Pope and congratulate him in relation to the birth of Isa (as)?
4) To say that you want 50 million tourists in Egypt even if they all are completely naked?
5) To claim that the Sharee'ah is only one of the valid sources of legislation?
6) To claim the permissibility of a non-Muslim leader if the people wish this?
7) To respect the treaties that have been signed with Israel and America?
8) To claim that Islam should not be implemented or that  an Islamic president should be avoided because it would make Egypt a target of the west?
9) To say that getting rid of Ribaa will harm the Egyptian economy? (As if the opposite is not true).
10) To send a letter of thanks and appreciation at the opening of the parliament (which you now dominate) to the ruling military council that has done nothing but spill innocent blood, kill your youth, cause Fitnah, imprisoned more people than Mubarak could have ever imagined, break its promises, kept the regime in place including its security apparatus and failed to bring a single person to justice in the entire year, in addition to affirming that it will not allow anything other than a secular state?
This list could go on and on but to sum up does Tadurruj give you the permission to run an entire election campaign where your main point is to convince everyone that you will not implement the Sharee'ah of Allah?!!
As far as the Islamic evidences related to the immediate and obligatory implementation of the Islamic rules then these are decisive and clear and leave no room for doubt.
Allah (swt) says:
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
“Verily the Hukm (ruling) is for none but Allah” (Yusuf 40)
And Allah (swt) commanded us to rule by all that he revealed and warned us from diverging from even a small part of what he has revealed:
وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ
“And rule between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires and beware of them that they may seduce you away from some of that which Allah has revealed to you” (Al-Maa'idah 49)
Allah Subhaanahu has commanded the Muslims when they accept Islaam to enter into it completely:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ادْخُلُوا فِي السِّلْمِ كَافَّةً وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ
“O You who believe enter into Islaam completely and do not follow the footsteps of Shaitaan because verily he is a clear enemy to you” (Al-Baqarah 208).
And it is a matter known by necessity in Islaam that Allah (swt) has revealed a complete and comprehensive Deen to us which is valid for all times and places:
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
“Today I have completed your Deen for you and perfected my favour upon you and have chosen Islaam as your Deen” (Al-Maa'idah 3)
And he (swt) said:
وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ
“And we have revealed to you the Book as an explanation for everything” (16:89)
So the Deen of Islaam is perfect, complete and deals with every aspect of life including the individual, societal relationships and the matters of ruling. And Allah Subhaanahu has ordered us to enter into it completely and this is a matter which well known, so when a person says 'Ashhadu Al Laa Ilaahah Illaa Allah, Wa Ashhadu Anna Muhammadar Rasool Allah' then he from that moment becomes bound by the rules that Allah Subhaanahu has revealed and he bows to these commands and prohibitions in complete submission to Him, willingly as a Muslim. Tadurruj as used today is no more than an excuse to leave the Shar'a of Allah, to disobey him and follow the footsteps of Shaytaan, may Allah Subhaanahu protect us from that.
How can a Muslim choose to leave the commands and prohibitions of Allah Ta'Alaa and His Messenger (saw) when we have been warned clearly about this:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا
“And it is not for a believing man or believing woman that when Allah and His Messenger have decided upon a matter to have any choice in these matters. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger then they have indeed strayed into clear misguidance” (Al-Ahzaab 36).
In conclusion I bear testimony as a Muslim that Allah (swt) has commanded you and all of the Muslims to implement the Sharee'ah, He (swt) has completed this Deen and perfected his blessings upon us and has chosen for us Islam as our Deen. The Messenger of Allah (saw) who was the walking Qur'aan never delayed the implementation of the Deen, not for one instant, and none from amongst the Sahaabah (rah) or the early generations of Muslims after him (saw). Indeed it is time for the Muslims to distance themselves from those who call for and implement the secular disbelieving systems in the Muslim world even if they claim or seem to be in Islamic clothing. It is clear to see from the actions and statements of those who claim Tadurruj that is merely an excuse not to implement Islam and for certain it is not the method for its implementation. And in Egypt the statement from the bleeding youth on the streets of treachery directed towards the Islamic groups is accurate and they have only really in effect taken over the place of Mubarak's disbanded National democratic Party and they have taken over the job of maintaining and protecting the corrupt secular regime and the western nations and their interests. It is time for the Muslims in Egypt and the sincere ranks from amongst these groups who sincerely desire the implementation of the Deen and the Sharee'ah to work with those who also sincerely desire this, to work with those who say the Haqq and do not fear the west or the secular elements, those who are true, sincere and do not compromise the Islamic Sharee'ah in word or deed and fear only Allah (swt). This is the work to establish the rightly guided Khilafah which the clear and decisive Sharee'ah evidences from the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijmaa' have commanded and not made a matter of option or gradualism and above all this is the work that will gain the pleasure of our Creator Rabbil ‘Aalaameen, His blessings and rewards.
قُلْ هَٰذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ
“Say (O Muhammad SAW): "This is my way; I invite unto Allâh with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me. And Glorified and Exalted is Allâh. And I am not of the Mushrikûn” (Yusuf 108).
Abu Abdil Hasib

Muslims must oppose the UN which is a colonial tool of the major powers

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

"...the UN emerged chiefly as a result of an agreement among the great powers led at that time by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. They concluded that the founding of a world organization was in the interests of their respective states. One should ask why they concluded this and then set those reasons alongside the idealism."
-- Mark Mazower

The recent double veto by Russia and China against the UN resolution calling for Assad's removal has attracted much international criticism and has again exposed the role of the UN as a colonial tool for helping major powers to protect their interests in the Muslim world. The latest tussle at the UN is in many ways, a re-run of the Iraq vote in 2003 and demonstrates vividly the division of major powers on safeguarding their material interests in Syria.  Back then, Russia and France vetoed Anglo-American efforts to seek international legitimacy for their invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime.

This time, China and Russia have joined forces to secure their strategic interests through the prolongation of Assad's regime, while America, France and Britain are in deferent mood. Both camps are exploiting ‘humanitarian' language to conceal their ulterior motives and justify their respective positions at the UN.  However, the saddest aspect to this continuing saga is the unstinting support offered to the undemocratic UN by the rulers of the Muslim world. Somehow these rulers believe that by seeking UN legitimacy and by beseeching major powers, the problems of the Muslim Ummah (nation) can be resolved. Yet, history teaches us the exact opposite.

Since the birth of the UN in 1945, it has been used by the great powers to cement their hegemony all over the world. No people have suffered more at the hands of the UN than the Muslim Ummah. The West have used the UN to divide the Muslim lands such as the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, dismemberment of Bosnia and the separation of East Timor from Indonesia. Furthermore, the UN is used by the America to plunge a dagger deep into the heart of the Ummah by creating Israel in 1948, and supporting its existence by issuing 58 vetoes since 1972.

On the behest of Western powers, the UN has played a pivotal role in isolating Muslims from each other. In the 1990s severe sanctions were imposed against Iraq, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan. These sanctions led to the death of millions of Muslims. When asked on 60minutes about the death of half a million Iraqi children. The US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said," I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." Furthermore, the West used the UN to justify the invasion of Somalia, and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Other major powers possess a notorious record of killing Muslims by making a mockery of the UN. The UN has done little to stop the killing fields of Chechnya, or the indiscriminate massacre of Muslims in East Turkmenistan (Xinjiang province in China). Both Russia and China have repeatedly prevented the UN from investigating such atrocities.

Clearly then the major powers are doing their utmost to suppress Islam and Muslims. Allah says: "Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths, but Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). It is He Who has sent His Apostle with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)." [TMQ AS-Saff:08-09)

Given the UN's criminal record against the Muslim world, its hostile efforts to suppress Muslim unity and its inability to restrain American hegemony, it is unimaginable why the rulers of the Muslim world blindly submit to the UN and hold it in such great esteem. Such leaders have truly betrayed Allah (SWT) and the Messenger of Allah (saw). Allah says: "O you who believe! Betray not Allah and His Messenger, nor betray knowingly your Amanat (things entrusted to you and all the duties which Allah has ordained for you)." [TMQ: Al Anfal:27]

Any sane ruler with a modicum of common sense should have realised by now that severing ties with the UN would give them a better chance of fighting imperialism and protecting the honour of the Muslim Ummah.

As for the ordinary Muslims who cling on to faint ray of hope that the UN will rescue them from their predicament, should take heed in the aya: "And do not incline to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you; and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall you be helped. " (TMQ Hud: 113)

Today, the bitter irony is that while the rulers of the Muslim world pledge their loyalty to the UN, major powers realise UN's limitations and still pursue their nefarious agenda to subdue the global Islamic revival. In the case of Syria - America and Britain (just as they did in 2003 in Iraq) are exploring alternative means of bringing down Assad's regime. They have solicited the support of Qatar and Turkey to protect their interests in Syria.

The only source of protection from the aggression of major powers and their instrument of international tyranny- the UN-is in the emergence of a powerful Islamic State. In actual fact, it was the Ottoman Caliphate's march towards Europe that spurred European nations to conclude the Treaty of Westphalia and international law was born. The Ottoman Caliphate stood firm against international law with such resoluteness, that for many years it was able to demand warring countries to sign up to peace treaties on its terms and without surrendering the Ummah's resources, or compromising Islamic values.

Muslims must no seek help from the UN, but redouble their efforts to re-establish the Caliphate and given bayah to the Caliph who will protect them from the onslaught of the major powers. Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A'araj, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves."

Abid Mustafa


Saturday, February 18, 2012

A Statement from Hizb ut-Tahrir Syria to the Muslim Scholars

On the 15th of Rabee' ul-Awwal 1433, corresponding to 7th Februrary 2012, 107 Muslim scholars issued a declaration regarding the events in Syria. This statement included fatawa about the sanctity of the Muslims' blood and their right, and that it is impermissible for members of the army or security services to kill anyone or to remain in their posts. They expressed support for the (Syrian) Free Army, and called on the Arab and Islamic countries to take a serious position towards the Syrian regime, and towards the states supporting it, like Russia and China. In addition, they called on the opposition to join ranks so that they could build their state on the basis of justice, protection of rights, establishing the freedoms, and institutions that would protect the country and its interests. They also announced their support for any effort which would prevent shedding of the Syrian people's blood, and that such efforts should lead to free elections, a fair distribution of power and compensation for victims and their families.

It is indeed good that Ulema from many different Muslim lands have joined together, which emphasises that the Muslims' causes are one; however it is highly blameworthy that this declaration does not contain any Islamic solution. It is as though it was intended to please certain authorities with whom Allah subhana wa ta'ala is not pleased – in other words the Western Kafir Capitalist states, and the regimes who do not rule by what Allah has revealed. It is obligatory that the declaration of Muslim scholars should be comprehensive, definitive, clear, bold and should put the right points in the right places, expressing the true position of Islam regarding what is happening in Syria and the rest of the Muslims' lands. They should send a genuine call to all the Muslims, so that they take a stance which is sincere to their Lord and to their Deen. They should declare that the Islamic Ummah – in her causes, her peace and her war – is one Ummah, and she cannot be separated by walls or borders. Nor can she remain separated by regimes cultivated by the West to divide her according to their interests – the same West which now fights over our lands as the wolves fight over the sheep.

We in Hizb ut-Tahrir Syria remind these ulema' first of all that they are the inheritors of the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wa sallam), and they are the trustees of his Deen; Allah has taken a covenant from them that they must convey the truth to the people, and not conceal it.

We also remind that Allah sees and hears them, and among the Sharee'ah rules that they would be sinful for concealing and not conveying are the following decisively proven rules:

The Muslims of Syria are obliged to overthrow the regime in Syria because first and foremost, it is a regime which does not rule by Islam

The method of change must be according to the method of Rasoul Allah (sall Allahu alaihi wa sallam). It must be a clean work, which is undertaken by all of the Muslims, including their scholars, leading personalities, the general masses and the people of power amongst them, by their own hands, as they are the ones who have the power to change the situation practically in their land.

The people of power in Syria must know that they have two Shar'i obligations: protection of their people, and supporting their deen in order to establish the Islamic Khilafah state, as the Ansar supported Allah, his Messenger and the Muslims in Madeenah Munawwarah.

The call for a civil, secular, irreligious state is a call of falsehood, as such regimes are regimes of Kufr which it is forbidden to adopt, implement or call for.

Foreign intervention in the Muslims' lands is forbidden, whether this was America and Europe, who hypocritically claim that they support the people of Syria, or Russia and China who are open in their enmity towards them. All of these states are united In their enmity towards Islam and in fighting it, however each of them uses their own methods.

Calling for UN Security Council intervention is forbidden, as its legislation is Kufr legislation, and its goals are tied to the objectives of the major powers, particularly America.

Along with this, if these scholars intend to be sincere men of knowledge, they should declare that the situation of all of the Muslims in their lands is one, and thus the Sharee'ah solution for them is one – that the tyrant regimes which do not rule the Muslims by what Allah has revealed must be removed and the Islamic state must be established in their place.

O distinguished Ulema in all of the Muslims' lands:

Indeed the time has come that you say the word of truth, after a long period of silence, and that you work for the establishment of the promised Islamic Khilafah state, after a long period of waiting. It may indeed be that the homeland of the Khilafah may be Ash-Sham (Syria region), which Allah has blessed. Take your share of the reward in this critical time of the labour, which may give birth to the Islamic state.

Allah ta'ala says:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَىٰ لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا ۚ يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا ۚ وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient" [an-Noor, verse 55]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah of Syria
17th Rabee' ul-Awwal 1433
9th February 2012