Saturday, May 18, 2013

Q&A on the stance of Hizb ut-Tahrir with regard to armed action in Syria's revolution by Ahmad al-Qasas


Question:
Praise is for Allah and Prayer and Peace be upon Allah's Messenger and his family and companions.
The view of the Sunnis and the community that it is not permissible to rebel against the ruling authority, except if outright disbelief appears, because in the hadith of Ubadah bin as-Samit "We gave the pledge (Bay'a) to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم on hearing and obedience at the difficult and easy situation, on what we like and dislike and on preference over ourselves; and that we have not to dispute the people with their authority, unless you see an open kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah the Supreme."
Please answer the following: Why did Hizb ut-Tahrir enjoin upon the youth to adopt the physical work in Syria, yet the rulers are one in the Arab countries, whilst the situation or case of the rulers is one and the same?
The answer:
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Noble brother, here is the answer to your question:
Firstly: It is true that it is not permissible to go out on the Muslim ruler unless appears outright disbelief. But the meaning of the emergence of outright disbelief is not confined to the display of apostasy from the ruler himself by his declaration of apostasy from Islam. The issue is not related only to the ruling person, "Is he an infidel or an apostate or not?" But rather the emergence of outright disbelief also means that the ruler adopts kufr systems and applies them on the people. Accordingly, the outright disbelief has emerged in the land since the Islamic Caliphate State fell and the Muslims were ruled with other than what Allah revealed. The application of the rules such as the capitalist system and the civil law and civil courts, which rule with other than what Allah revealed. This means that the ruling authority ruled with the rules of disbelief, and this is outright disbelief which requires of Muslims to overthrow the rulers and the establishment of an Islamic state.
Secondly: with regard to the physical work: We must distinguish between rules mandated of a political party on the one hand, and the rules assigned to individuals, the state and across the ummah on the other. The party believes that the physical work is not the prerogative of the parties, it will not one-day turn into an armed group organizing armed actions. This is not because the physical actions are not allowed, but because the physical action is not the prerogative of political parties. Otherwise, there are physical acts obliged of the ummah and its members and the rulers, whether fighting or not, whether in the case of an Islamic state or in its absence, whether acts of jihad and other types of fighting legislated by Islam, in defence of an infidel invader, and defence of one's self and money, and like the fighting done by the people of the power to establish an Islamic state when it sees that it has the ability.
Do not you see that the party does not have of its prerogative to organize Hajj convoys, but its youth must as Muslims perform the Hajj with one convoy or another? Do not you see also that the party does not build mosques and regulate the prayers of the congregation, but its youth are recommended like all Muslims to build mosques so that they can pray with the congregation ... And also would be the legitimate fighting, whether jihad or another kind of fighting that is prescribed by Islam.
The party did not adopt for itself the armed action, not in Syria and not in other than Syria, not today and not before that. But it believes that the fighting done by the people of Syria, to defend themselves in the beginning, and then to take back the usurped authority and restoration of sovereignty to the shariah after that, is a legitimate fight, rather required. The youth of the party engaged in the fighting, not under the orders and the organization of the party, but as Muslims that applies to them what applies to all of the Muslims. But this fight is not organised by the party, and not lead in the field as armed battalions, nor does it train the youth to fight, nor does it secure arms for them... The Party's prerogative is the ideological and political work.
This is not only applicable to Syria, but to any country that happens to it what is happening in Syria. What happened is that the people of Syria have been killed and massacred, so they rose up to defend themselves, their honour and their property, and then they were determined to overthrow the tyrant and take back the usurped authority, so the party approved of this, rather it praised their action, then worked among them to convince them and advise them that it is not permissible to overthrow the tyrant to replace with a tyrant that governs without what Allah has revealed, So it drew the attention to many of them to this obligation and to adhere to it. The party is still doing its best to guide the bulk of the rebel fighters to work for the establishment of the caliphate system on the ruins of the tyrant.
In summary, we should distinguish between two issues:
1 - The physical actions are not the business of the political parties as parties.
2 - The issue that the physical actions that the legislator gave the rule of obligatory, recommendation, permissibility, or prevention must be adhered to by the Muslims - including the youth of the party - in the case of an Islamic state and in the event of its absence, unless evidence indicates that this work is the prerogative of the absent Islamic State, such as establishing the punishments, for example.
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
An additional question was posed to Ahmed al-Qasas on his answer above:
We were confused to understand the statement: "The party did not adopt for itself the armed action, not in Syria and not in other than Syria, not today and not before that. But it believes that the fighting done by the people of Syria, to defend themselves in the beginning, and then to take back the usurped authority and restoration of sovereignty to the shariah after that, is a legitimate fight, rather required." What happened is that the people of Syria have been killed and massacred, so they rose up to defend themselves, their honour and their property, and then they were determined to overthrow the tyrant and take back the usurped authority, so the party approved of this, rather it praised their action".
We are aware that the work required and legislated is to work in a political bloc in the ummah working to make them aware of the deen and the reality of her case and this work is the only way to change the dar from dar-al-kufr to dar-al-Islam. Please answer, thank you.
The following is the answer of Ahmed Al-Qasas:
It is the duty of the political bloc in the absence of an Islamic state that is working to found the pillars of the state, as the state did not fall except with the fall of its pillars. The most important of these pillars of the political legislation of the Islamic State of the Constitution and systems forming the state at its establishment, and the presence of a group of Islamic personalities reflecting the culture and activity in calling to this legislation to take on its implementation when the state is established. However, except that the most important of these pillars and the most difficult to achieve is public opinion, which is looking forward to the establishment of an Islamic state and which will establish the State when it is established and which the state will be a reflection of once it is established. Because, the state is not allowed to be just an authority not belonging to a society, and it cannot in origin be established without the society embracing it and then it becomes the executive entity for its concepts, convictions and its criteria. Because in Islam the authority belongs to the ummah, so there must be an ummah which the state becomes a representative of in ruling and taking care of her affairs. The creation of these pillars (the political legislation, the group of politicians and the public opinion) is the basic function of the bloc before the establishment of an Islamic state, and as these pillars cannot be found except through a political bloc that is based on the Islamic belief and embodies the project of the Islamic State; It is a duty to establish that bloc and a duty on every Muslim to work with this bloc until it completes the obligation that it was established for. However, the work does not end with the establishing of those pillars, but it must, if it found that these conditions (pillars) were met, complete its work for the establishment of an Islamic state, but how? By urging those who have the ability of the people of power, who are part of the Islamic public opinion, to carry out to the stage of application and authority the delivery of the Islamic state project that the bloc prepared. This is what we call requesting the support. If the people of the power are the rulers themselves, the draft prepared by the bloc is delivered to rulers and authority, and the Islamic state is established without a fight, as happened with the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him when the leaders of Madinah handed over to him the government and the authority so the State arose without any combatative action. This, of course, is not our situation today, because our rulers are part of the system hostile to the ummah and her deen. Now the fact is that the people of power who can deliver the Islamic state project to power are from other than the rulers, and Islam cannot be brought into power, except by extracting the authority from the usurpers by force, and this can only be a physical act. This material work is the duty of the people of power, whether they are members of the party or not. The duty of establishing an Islamic state is duty of sufficiency for the ummah, not on the party alone. But it is obligatory for the work in the beginning to be with the bloc, because the bloc is able to create conditions (pillars) required by the state. If these pillars (foundations) are not brought into being, then it is specific for the the people of power who are capable or who can collect the ability to transfer the dawah from the stage of interaction to the stage of practical application; without it being a condition that the people of power are members in the bloc, as this would be a requirement without any evidence.
Does the seeking of Nusrah from the people of power carry any meaning if the use of their power by material action was not used to strip the authority for the sake of bringing the project of the Islamic State?
Thus, it is clear to us that the physical work is not part of the work of the party in his work for the establishment of the Islamic State, nor of its prerogative. However, the material actions of the people of support for the delivery of Islam to the rule is not inconsistent with the Party's work, it is a complement to it.
Now a question remains: Who are the people of victory who shall be entitled to this physical work? The answer that is cemented in the minds of many youth, as a result of the subordination of the ummah for decades to rulers and their tyrants, and as a result of the people being accustomed to the transition of power for decades has been confined to military coups, is that the people of support are the exclusively officers in the armies. In fact, the party did not confine the obligation of wresting power to the armies, rather to anyone who has the ability to do so. It came in one of the leaflets issued in 1989 listing them as follows:
1 – The whole ummah if its desire became unified,
2 – The Army with what it has of physical strength.
3 – The big influential tribes, which have power,
4 - The political blocs that have a large influential force in the army, or in the large tribes, or in the ummah.
To fully convey the benefit, here is a section from that leaflet distributed by the party which came under the title"Forbidding The Wrong Is An Obligation And Using The Physical Power To Remove It Depends On Capability"
"Auf bin Malik al Ashj'ayi reported, "I heard the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم say, 'The best of you Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you and who pray (call Allah to bless you) and you pray for them (call Allah to bless them), and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you.'" He said, "We said, 'O Prophet of Allah, should we not then declare war on them.' He said, ' No, as long as they establish the prayer among you'". What is meant by establishing the prayer is ruling by Islam, i.e. applying the rules of Shar'a, on the basis of naming the whole with the name of (its) part.
It was narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some others; whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe but what about those who accepted (i.e. their wrong) and followed." They said, "Should we not then fight against them?" He said, "No, as long as they prayed". That is, as long as they applied the shar'a rules including the prayer, on the basis of applying the name of the part on the whole. It was also narrated about Ubada bin As-Samit, he said, "We gave the pledge (Bay'a) to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم on hearing and obedience at the difficult and easy situation, on what we like and dislike and on preference over ourselves; and that we have not to dispute the people with their authority, unless you see an open kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah the Supreme; and that we have to say the truth for the sake of Allah".
The meaning of these three ahadeeth, forbids the rebellion with arms against the ruler, except in the case when he does not govern with the revelation of Allah, i.e. in case he ruled with the laws of open kufr, upon which there is undoubted clear proof from Allah that it is kufr.
Thereupon, any Muslim ruler who does not govern with the revelation of Allah and governed, instead, with the clear kufr rules, it becomes obligatory upon all Muslims to rebel against him with arms, to remove him from the authority, and to remove the kufr ruling with which he governs and to put in application and execution the rules revealed from Allah.
The obligation of rebellion against the ruler with arms depends on the ability to remove him, and removing the clear kufr rules by the physical power - even if it was (only) most likely - because using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong matters - depends on the capability to remove the wrong actually by that force. So the place of action of the hadeeth which makes it obligatory to use the hand for changing the wrong, and the place of action of the two ahadeeth which makes it obligatory to rebel with arms against the ruler who governs with the kufr laws are dependent on the capability of the physical power to change the wrong and the clear kufr and to remove it actually, even if it was most likely. But if the physical power was not capable actually, or most likely, to change the wrong and the kufr laws and to remove them actually, then it has not to be used, because its use then does not fulfil the aim for which the shar'a obliged using it, which is changing the wrong, and the kufr laws and removing them actually. At such situation, forbidding the wrong would be by tongue, and at the same time, effort has to be made to increase the power (force) so as to become capable - even if most likely - to change the wrong and the kufr laws actually, and at such point it has to be used. The whole nation (Ummah), if it unified its will, and the army with the physical (material) power which it possesses, and the large tribes which have the influence and the force (power), and the political parties which have great effective power in the army or in the large tribes or in the nation (Ummah), each one of these, once it possessed the capability to remove the ruler who governs with the clear kufr laws, and he does not govern with the rules of Islam, it becomes obligatory upon it by Shar'a to rebel against that ruler, so as to remove him, and to remove the kufr laws, and to restore the rule with the revelations of Allah."
End quote.
I ask God to enlighten our sight and to guide us to the most guided of ways and guide our steps, He is the best protector and bets helper.
Ahmad al-Qasas

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Assalaamu Alaikum, firstly I would like to mention that this answer by Sheikh Ahmad Al-Qasas was provided in his individual capacity and was not published officially by the Hizb. Secondly he makes two main points: The first is the permissibility of the Shabab of the Hizb to join in the fighting as individuals whilst the Hizb does not engage in any material acts but rather restricts itself to the intellectual and political actions. The second point is that it is an obligation on those who physically possess the capability to remove the regime to do so and as mentioned in the article that he referenced thosewho have the capability are represented in the army, tribes or even the nation if the reality dictates that they possess the ability. It also mentions that it is not permissible to use material actions if the capability is not there. So the permissibility of using force depends on the reality and the ability of those using it to remove the leader and replace him with the ruler who rules by Islaam. As such the Hukm itself depends on the understanding of the reality and perception. So if those engaging in fighting in Syria are capable by themselves to remove the Munkar and replace the regime with an Islamic one then it is permissible for them to utilise force however if it is viewed that they are not capable of achieving this then the ruling is that it is not permissible. Another way of describing this capability is with the description of being the Ahlu-n-Nusrah (the people possessing the capability of transferring the authority) like the Ansaar (rah).