Saturday, August 31, 2013

The American Led International Coalition to strike Syria Aims to Impose its Rule and Save Bashar

The American Led International Coalition to strike Syria Aims to Impose its Rule and Save Bashar, and Hit the Islamists and Prevent the Arrival of the Islamic Project to Power

The American position has announced the decision to punitively strike the Syrian regime after Bashar made use of chemical weapons against civilians in Damascus on 8/21/2013 surprised the countries of the world. Some of these countries took a supportive position, declaring their willingness to join the international coalition that is to direct this strike under the lead of America.
The wave of regional and international media undertook a change of direction, such that the talk about this intervention is the first topic that is making the round. Obama has described the chemical attack as "an important event that raised grave concern", announced America's intention to launch a military strike against strategic targets in Syria and opposed the call for military intervention in Syria without a UN mandate. The spokesman of the White House repeated what his president had stated earlier, in that he does not expect the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Hagel told reporters that "the Ministry of Defense is responsible for providing the president with options for each case of emergency." Pentagon officials said that the 4 destroyers of the U.S. Navy are on standby to carry out any order they are given concerning Syria within hours. The newspaper The Washington Post cited a military official that all destroyers are armed with about 90 winged Tomahawk rockets and that there are American submarines carrying winged missiles in the Mediterranean Sea, but their positions remain confidential. A closed meeting of the leaders of the armies of ten countries was held in Amman to discuss the scenario of directing a military strike, and the Washington Post Newspaper in its issue from 8/27/2013 revealed that the process would depend "in its timing on three factors: the completion of the intelligence report that assesses the extent of the involvement of the Syrian government in the attack of last week, ongoing consultations with the allies and the Congress, and the determination of the justification for the attack under international law." America announced that the aim of the strike is to punish and discipline Bashar for his use of chemical weapons, but not to bring about a regime change. A senior official in the U.S. State Department said that the chemical attack showed the need for "a comprehensive political solution and lasting peace" to end the crisis in Syria.
In the presence of this crowd of international positions of pro-military strike, and the statements and actions of the American military, and the array of media effort to report on this strike, the Russian position dramatically plunged into humiliation. Moreover Lavrov's announcement that Russia would not enter into war for anyone, and the Russian announcement of its intention to vacate its military pieces from its naval base in Tartus in the event of the strike. More than 120 Russian nationals were evacuated, and Russia expressed its regrets for the cancellation of a meeting with the U.S. that was scheduled to be held in The Hague on 8/28/2013 in order to prepare the ground for the Geneva 2 Conference. As for Iran, it started rearing, puffing and threatening but quietly without causing noise, and it has to be mentioned that the American and UN political official, the fox Jeffrey Feltman, visited Tehran suggesting a scenario and distribution of roles.
America owns the sole influence in Syria, and its influence there is endangered by the revolution. In vain were all of the political and criminal and brutal tricks to destroy the revolution, America did not even succeed in securing an agent ruler as Bashar's alternative, not to mention its failure in the production of such an alternative. Now here comes America with another hellish plan to be implemented and carried out by it, no less criminal than the criminality and monstrosity of Bashar in robbing lives. This plan started with the chemical strike executed by Bashar to be used as a justification for military intervention, and to thereby open the door of the political process leading to Geneva 2. A prominent member of the Syrian opposition exposed for the al-Sharq al-Awsat the features of an agreement between the opposition and those allied countries, and said that "the process will not eliminate the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but will bring to the negotiating table Geneva 2 exhaustively" and that "the Syrian president at the end of the negotiations and as a result will step down." To go even further, he also told al-Sharq al-Awsat that according to sources of the Syrian opposition the American side asked them to offer it a "bank of targets " to be used for the strike, and that meetings will be held between U.S. experts and members of the military councils to set the assumed goals.
It is likely that in such a meeting they will run through scenarios to eliminate Islamist fighters, the owners of the project to establish the Khilafah state in Syria. Therefore the strike is expected to be limited and calculated, to strike the essential military infrastructure, so that the new Syria is one at peace with Israel. It will lead to the loss of many Muslim lives, as happened in Libya, and as it happens in Afghanistan when masses are killed by U.S. drones bombing civilians under the pretext of hitting the leaders of al-Qaida and the Taliban. America through its military dominance will impose itself as the main administrator of the dialogue, and it will impose its own project of solutions on the opposition and the regime as participants in the dialogue, as it will impose the sending of strong, effective international forces to cooperate with the national army to attack anyone who violates this project.
Further America will impose the preservation of the security services by which Bashar kills the Muslims, because they will guarantee the American grasp of the new regime. Finally America will set up international tribunals to bring to trial some of those known to have killed people, to silence the public and give them a sense of relief, as they did in Kosovo.
Oh Muslims in Syria ash-Sham and other Muslim countries:
America is the head of evil in the world; it is the worst enemy of the Muslims! America is now on the verge of committing massacres in Syria that will not be less than those committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you will see that they will assume the mission of mass murder against Muslims from Bashar, and with it will come an international mandate to kill, they will impose a secular constitution and agent rulers upon you. Today the same America is the weakest it has ever been in the region, it is threatened with loss of influence in the region. America is unable to stabilize the political situation through its clients in Egypt and Syria and it has made its bitter experience with the Muslims. Now they claim that they do not want to occupy Syria, just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather America wants to impose its political agenda so as to achieve its interests without occupation. It is this America that loves to announce its refusal of intervention and fighting, and anyone who demands this is a traitor to his Deen and his Ummah. America came to save its interests and its agent Bashar who they still considered president, and will work to secure a safe exit for him, his family and his aides. It is this America that is an enemy to you so take it for what it is! Unmask its agents with the strongest and clearest of words! All of the murder, torture, displacement, hunger, humiliation and arrest you have suffered. It will not be compensated except by raising the word of Allah on earth. It is this America that has let loose its henchmen on you and it wants to drag the world into the war against you and your Deen, and it will repeat this cycle over and over again.
Not one of you are excused for remaining silent for their intended crime, you are obliged to prohibit it!
Oh Muslims in Syria ash-Sham and other Muslim countries:
Allah's commands and prohibitions must be the measures of our actions. Allah has enjoined on the Muslims to embrace the Islamic project based on the establishment of a Khilafah state. Look around you, is there any project that brings together the Muslims and unites them apart from this project and that will enable you to stand in the face of the American project?! Is it without Allah that you could overcome the masses of Kufr, no matter how great they are? So be with Allah for He will be with you, and give victory to His Deen for He will give you victory. Hizb ut Tahrir calls you to this great obligation that is most strongly fought by America, the West, the nations of the world and the rulers of the Muslims and the secularists. But Allah is the One who takes care of His affairs, for He سبحانه وتعالى said:
أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ * الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَقُولُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ * الَّذِينَ إِنْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَمَرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَنَهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَلِلَّهِ عَاقِبَةُ الْأُمُورِ
"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged – truly Allah has the power to come to their support – those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah' if Allah had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where Allah's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. Allah will certainly help those who help Him – Allah is All-Strong, Almighty"
(Al-Hajj, 22:39-40)
Hizb ut Tahrir Wilayah Syria
Wednesday, 21st Shawwal 1434 AH
28th August 2013 CE

Nusrah: Is it sought or is it formed?

In recent days there has been much discussion about the subject of seeking the Nusrah and especially after the revolutions that have become known as the Arab Spring in general and the revolution in the lands of Ash-Shaam specifically. The following idea and question has been circulating amongst the general Ummah including some of the Shabab who carry the Da'wah: Why does the party bloc which is the most aware in matters of the Shar'a (Islamic legislation) and most aware politically insist upon the issue of seeking the Nusrah? And why does this bloc not establish and form a specific force that can be utilised relying upon it to reach the position of ruling? And why does it not form armed regiments and brigades in the land of Ash-Shaam so as to become the nucleus of the army that establishes the Islamic Khilafah? All of this is especially so particular so as this is the only block that is spread throughout the whole world whether in the Islamic or non-Islamic world, across the five continents and proceeds according to a single unified vision and one leader. And it is the only bloc in the entire world that extends across such areas whilst maintaining cohesion and unity in its thoughts and sensations.
And before answering and responding to these questions we would like to highlight that the issue (Mas'alah) of seeking the Nusrah is not a matter of choice for the Kutlah (party bloc) but rather it is a matter of Hukm Shari' (legislative ruling) deduced from the Shari'ah evidences. And when there is a Shar'i ruling then it is necessary upon every Muslim to abide by it and even if this opposes what all the people combined are upon. And it is Haraam to move to another different ruling as long as this original is taken from the Shar'a of Allah:
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 male and female believer when Allah and His Messenger have decided upon a matter to have any choice in it and whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger then they have clearly strayed away."
(Al-Ahzaab, 33:36)
This is the reason for the insistence of the block upon the act of seeking Nusrah as it represents the insistence upon the implementation of the Shar'i ruling and this is the reason alone.
And we ask those who have put forward this questioning: Are the Muslims obliged to follow the Seerah of the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم or are they not bound to follow by it? And are the Muslims obliged to work to establish the Islamic Khilafah according to the Prophetic guidance or are we only obliged to take the manners of going to the bathroom, the nullifiers of Wudoo' and noble morals from his life صلى الله عليه وسلم?
And as for the issues relating to ruling and the politics of the Ummah and the method of arriving to the rule then we are not bound by his life صلى الله عليه وسلم, rather we choose from it what we wish according to the circumstances and reality?
And in response to those who say that the method to arrive to the rule is only a style from amongst the styles that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has given to us to choose from, then we say: Hold on, do not make big claims with the Deen of Allah and attribute to Allah in your words that which you are not knowledgeable about. If the issue was related to the acts that nullify the Wudoo' then nobody would have a right to give his view without knowledge and therefore how can this be the case in respect to the issue of the method to establish the Khilafah? And if the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has explained to us everything related to our Deen, then is it plausible that he صلى الله عليه وسلم did not explain to us the manner of achieving and reaching the rule? Did not the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم say: I have for you a clear white path, its night is like its day: The Kitaab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet? Or does the issue of establishing the Khilafah not fall within this clear white path and is not from the Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم?
And we say to every Muslim: As for the evidences indicating that the Nusrah is a method that we are bound to follow and not merely a style that we choose whenever we desire, then they are as follows:
Firstly: We do not have a Shar'iy model to reach the rule except for that which he صلى الله عليه وسلم did in Makkah. It is not found in the statements or actions of the Sahaabah (rah) or those of the Taabi'oon (the generation after the Sahaabah) and it is not found in any book of Fiqh. This means that it is the only Shar'iy model and blueprint that we have at our disposal that explains the manner and way of arriving to the rule and as such we are obligated to abide by it.
Secondly: There is an explicit evidence (Daleel Sareeh) that holds no ambiguity indicating that the seeking of the Nusrah was from that which was revealed from Allah سبحانه وتعالى. This Daleel has been mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Katheer (163/7), the Dalaa'il An-Nabawiyah of Al-Bayhaqi (297/2), the Seerah of Ibn Hibbaan (p 93), the Ma'rifah of the Sahaabah of Abu Na'eem Al-Asbahaaniy (274/18) and in Al-Iktifaa which discusses the expeditions of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and three Khulafaa (337/1 Abu Ar-Rabee' Suleymaan Bin Musaa Al-Kalaa'iy Al-Andulusiy).
Ibn 'Abbaas related that 'Ali Bin Abi Taalib told me: "When Allah commanded His Messenger to present himself to the Arab tribes, he went out with whilst I accompanied him with Abu Bakr to Minaa..."
In regards to this Hadeeth Al-Kalaa'iy Al-Andulusiy the author of Al-Iktifaa said:
This is a Mash'hoor (well-known) Hadeeth that I have left due to its fame. Meaning that the author of Al-Iktifaa only mentioned a part of it due to it being a well-known Hadeeth amongst the 'Ulamaa.
Thirdly: The following was mentioned in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer:
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ كُفُّوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآَتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ يَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ كَخَشْيَةِ اللَّهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْيَةً وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لِمَ كَتَبْتَ عَلَيْنَا الْقِتَالَ لَوْلَا أَخَّرْتَنَا إِلَى أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْيَا قَلِيلٌ وَالْآَخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقَى وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا
Have you not seen those who were told: "Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give Zakaah"? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or with [even] greater fear. They said: "Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time." Say, the enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed]."
(An-Nisaa, 4:77)
Ibn Abi Haatim said: 'Ali Bin Al-Husain told us that Muhammad Bin Abdul 'Azeez told us that Abu Zur'ah and 'Ali Bin Ramhah both said: 'Ali Bin Al-Hasan related from Al-Husain Bin Waaqid from 'Amr Bin Deenar from 'Ikramah from Ibn 'Abbaas that 'Abdur Rahman Bin 'Auf and his companions came to the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم in Makkah and they said: O Nabi of Allah we were in a position of honour whilst we were Mushrikoon (polytheists) in Makkah and then when we believed we were made to be low. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "I have been commanded to be pardoning so do not fight the people." Then when Allah turned him towards Al-Madinah he commanded him with fighting and resistance when Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed: "Have you not seen those who were told: "Restrain your hands [from fighting]..."
An-Nasaa'i, Al-Haakim in his Mustadrak and Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan Al-Kubraa all recorded similar to this.
From the above it is understood that this issue is a matter of Wahy (Divine inspiration and revelation) in the form of obligation and not in the form of providing a choice.
Fourthly: The continuation of the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم upon the act of seeking the Nusrah without diverging from this course despite the presence of hardship experienced whilst attempting to attain it. Had the seeking of Nusrah been an Usloob (style) then the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم would have changed it and especially because he was exposed to harm as a result of it in At-Taa'if, in addition to his attempts of negotiation with the tribes of Banu 'Aamir Bin Sa'sa'ah and Banu Haneefah and the rejection of the remaining tribes to his thought time and time again.
And here we ask: Was it not possible for him صلى الله عليه وسلم in the Makkan stage to form a secret group whose task was to assassinate those who brought harm against the Muslims and especially in the case where the Muslims were being afflicted with a level of suffering that drove some of them to agree with the Quraish in some statements of disbelief and to insult the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم?
Why did he صلى الله عليه وسلم not form a group secretly that would assassinate whoever stood in the face of the Da'wah as an obstacle like Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl and Waleed Bin Al-Mugheerah amongst others?
Why did the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم not ask Abu Dhar Al-Ghifaari to return to his people inviting them to Islam and from there form a group from those who embraced Islaam, who would then cut and block the trade routes of the Quraish and take their wealth and properties as a booty for the benefit of the Muslims, leading to the economic strangling of the Quraish whilst the Muslims would have all the wealth that they required and more?
Was the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم not a skilled trader and his wife Khadijah (ra) had much wealth that could be used for trade? Was Abu Bakr not wealthy, Uthmaan rich, Abdur Rahman Bin 'Auf a skillful tradesman whilst Suhaib Ar-Roomi had wealth at his disposal (rah)? So in these circumstances why did the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم not organise the financing of a brigade or regiment made up the strongest and most fierce men like 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, Hamzah, Zubair Ibn Al-'Awwaam and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqaas (rah) who would declare war against the Quraish in order to establish the Islamic State? And this was in the case where those who were weak and oppressed would have stood with the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم against the Quraish?
Why did the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم continue to present his Da'wah to the tribes and ask them to provide the Nusrah despite the presence of many alternative different paths and styles that could have been utilised like those mentioned above? Does this not indicate that this action represents a Tareeqah (method) that it is obligatory to commit to and that it is not a style that we can choose whenever we wish or desire?
Why did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم not establish a force that could stand up to the Quraish? Was the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Sahaabah (rah) not boycotted with Banu Haashim in the Sha'b of Abi Taalib? So why did the Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Sahaabah (rah) not make an alliance with Baani Haashim and declare a military war against the rest of the Quraish?
And so: We know that it is passion for Islaam and the Muslims that has motivated those who say that it is necessary for the Kutlah (party bloc) to change the act of seeking Nusrah to another course of action. However we say to them that passion (Al-Ghairah) alone is not enough. Rather it is necessary to link this passion (Al-Ghairah) to the commands of the Shar'a and it is necessary for whoever wishes well for the Muslims to take into account that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is more zealous in respect to His Shar'a and the well-being of the Muslims.
Reflect upon the saying of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم:
"Verily Allah has zeal and vehemence (Al-Ghairah) in regards to approaching what He has made Haraam."
And he صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
"Does the passion and zeal (Al-Ghairah) of Sa'd impress you? By Allah I am more zealous than Sa'd and Allah has more Ghairah than me."
So as long as the seeking of Nusrah is a Shari'ah rule then other ways of attaining the rule are Haraam and in addition it is not permitted to violate this rule ever because Allah سبحانه وتعالى has warned us from breaching and overstepping His Hudood (limits):
Allah سبحانه وتعالى states:
تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا
"Those are the limits (Hudood) of Allah so do not transgress them"
(Al-Baqarah, 2:229)
The one who has zeal and passion for the Shar'a whilst not being disciplined and ordered by the Shar'a is like the one who does not know how to swim and throws himself in the water to save someone who is drowning to save him, but as a result he drowns alongside him.

Source: Al-Waie Magazine Issue 318-320

The Saudi King spends millions to fight against Islam

News agencies have reported that the Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz intends to donate $100 million to the United Nations to support the 'Centre of combating' what they call 'Terrorism'. In a speech given by the King on the occasion of Eid ul-Fitr he said: 'I announce the giving of $100 million to support the work of this centre operating under the Umbrella of the United Nations'. This was according to the Saudi News Agency and in addition the King called the 'International Community' to support the 'Centre' to get rid of what he called: 'The forces of hatred, extremism and criminality'.
And prior to this Saudi had signed an agreement with the UN in the year 2011 to establish this 'Centre' and gave an amount of $10 million for its creation. And it is worth noting that the King of Saudi himself was the original owner of the idea to create this centre. He suggested it first in 2005 and made combating 'terrorism' one of his priorities.
The adoption by the Saudi King of the idea of combating 'terrorism' and creating international centres to take care of this is only the adoption of an American western idea and no one can argue in respect to it being an imported idea from outside that emanates from the America and the West as a tool to fight against Islaam, divide the unity of the Muslims, to give justification to military invasions and attacks upon the Islamic lands and to instigate internal divisions and war between the Muslims themselves.
So the King whilst adopting this is only playing the role of a bird that repeats what the West markets in terms of slogans that are hostile to Islaam and the Muslims and as such joins the ranks of the enemies of Islaam who plot and plan schemes against it, harbouring evil sentiments and conspiring against it.
And this misguided King does not find it sufficient to merely market this idea with all of his spite and energy alone, but rather in addition he spends huge amounts of money in its cause, the like of which if spent upon the poor and needy of the Ummah would lead to there being no one left from the Muslims in poverty.
And on this occasion in his comment the King used descriptions in his language that none except the enemies of Islaam use when he said: 'The forces of hatred, extremism and criminality'. If only this King was to define for us specifically who exactly these forces are precisely? Or does he fear in the labels that he uses in the face of the dominant public opinion that supports Islaam in Najd, Al-Hijaaz and the rest of the Islamic lands?!
And it is known in a manner that cannot be hidden from anybody that the movements and Islamic parties that are striving to implement the Islamic legislation, establish the Islamic Khilafah State and which calls for the declaration of Jihaad in the way of Allah against the disbelieving enemies of the Ummah. It is not hidden from anybody that these are those whom he means when he says 'Forces' and describes with these descriptions which the west first used to describe them before him.
So where are the 'Ulamaa of Al-Hijaaz and Najd specifically in regards to these heinous crimes which the rulers of the Saudi family commit against the Ummah day and night? Why do they not issue statements in regards to them and we don't hear from them a sound? This is whilst the media and satellite stations fill their daily programmes with their repetitive and boring sermons!
It is from the most important of obligations upon the Ummah today to face those agent rulers who follow America and the West and to exposes their intentions and this will not happen unless there is an uprising against them, a comprehensive uprising by igniting the revolution against them and so that the earth is shaken from under their feet.
It is a duty upon the Ummah to work from this moment with a means at their disposal to bring their rule down and to remove the influence and designs of their masters (in the west) from the land of the Haramain and the rest of the Islamic lands and to give the people a respite and room to breathe from the acts of evil and treachery against them.
Written for the radio of the Central media office of Hizb ut Tahrir by Abu Hamzah Al-Khatawaani.
8th Shawaal 1434

Friday, August 30, 2013

Threatening Military Intervention in Syria is to prevent the rule of Islam and produce an alternative agent to Assad

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Threatening Military Intervention in Syria, Which is Increasingly Talked About, is the Epitome of Evil
It is to prevent the rule of Islam and to produce an alternative agent to rule instead of their agent Bashar after his role is exhausted
Currently the circulating talk of military intervention by America and its allies under the pretext of their opposition to the use of chemical weapons by the regime is escalating. They shroud that under "defending humanism and morality" while they are devoid of this. America, Britain, France, Russia and all Kafir colonial states have for so long trampled all humanitarian and ethical values with their feet in the prisons of Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Not to mention their flagrant spying! They are infamous for competing in nuclear and biological crimes, weapons of mass destruction and monstrous massacres. Evidence of this is scattered in all corners of the world, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the terrible massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Mali and Chechnya among others.
Moreover these countries, especially America, gave the greenest of green light to Bashar to use chemical weaponry to kill children, women and the elderly. Had it not been for this green light, the tyrant would not have dared to use it in al-Ghouta, but he had already used chemical weapons in Syria before al-Ghouta, and even after al-Ghouta, as today news of toxic gases having been used by the regime in some areas of Syria has been reported. All this took place with the knowledge and approval of America and its allies.
Thus the human and moral motivations in which they shroud their military intervention are purely sick and blatant lies; it is an undeniably invalid argument, as understood by every possessor of insight, vision and a healthy heart.
The reality of this military intervention from America, which leads the evil colonial forces, is to arrange the situation in Syria under the pressure of military intervention in order to find an alternative agent regime to the agent regime of Bashar, who has neared the expiration of his role. This is because they could not market their creations in the National Council and Coalition to the people inside Syria, and could not drive them to voluntarily accept their creations instead of Bashar and his henchmen. The camp of evil feared that the people of Syria will establish the rule of Islam and sever the roots of the Kuffar and the Munafiqun. Hence America and its allies want to prevent this by military intervention in certain places, to then ignite negotiations between the regime and the coalition, leading to an alternative agent regime that does not differ than Bashar's regime except for less grim faces!
Oh Muslims, Oh People in Syria, Oh Honest and Sincere in your Work against the Tyrant of ash-Sham:
The duty is to prevent this military intervention and the fatal creations carried out by all means. The tyrant is about to leave at your hands! Your success has drawn near of the establishment of the rule of Islam in your lands, which will protect your Deen, yourselves, your honor and your wealth, a rightly guided, just rule that will restore truth...a rightly guided Khilafah that will restore to Syria its light and role, for it is the abode of Islam and will return to be so, inshaAllah!
Remain steadfast and patient in the face of oppression and the oppressors, and know that rescuing your land by your own hands, no matter how severe the sacrifices, is khair (good) for you in your Deen and your Dunya than the entry of the colonial Kuffar into your land under the pretext of rescue! It is not a rescue, rather it is certain death!
كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً يُرْضُونَكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَى قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ
"How indeed! For if they get the upper hand over you, they will respect neither kinship nor treaty. They please you with their mouths but their hearts belie their words. Most of them are deviators."
(At Tauba, 9:8)
O Muslims, O Brethren in Syria, O those who are honest and sincere in their work against the tyrant of al-Sham:
The use of Kaffir imperial states to resolve our problems is a grave issue and a malignant evil, and a betrayal of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Believers, and by it you dictate on yourselves the wrath of Allah, the strong and great, for Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا
"O you who believe! Do not take the disbelievers as allies rather than the believers. Do you want to give Allah clear proof against you?"
(An-Nisaa, 4:144)
And the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم says:
لَا تَسْتَضِيئُوا بِنَارِ الْمُشْرِكِ
"Do not seek light from the fire of a Mushrik."
As narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Anas. And in a narration from al-Bahiqi:
لَا تَسْتَضِيئُوا بِنَارِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ
"Do not seek light from the fire of the Mushrikeen."
And likewise it was narrated by al-Bukhari in his Tareekh al-Kabeer quoted, as in do not make the fire of the polytheists a light for you. And fire is a euphemism for war, and the hadith is metaphorically speaking about war next to the polytheists and taking their opinion, so the prohibition of using them is understood from the hadith, as he said:
فَإِنَّا لَا نَسْتَعِينُ بِمُشْرِكٍ
"We do not use the Mushrik."
Narrated by Ahmad and Abu-Dawood. So using the military intervention of the Kufaar or even consulting them in the terms of our problems is a great transgression that is not correct and not permissible.
And indeed it is tragedy for the imperialists to pledge and threaten military intervention in Syria, while the rulers in the Islamic lands sit by, watching what is happening and what is going on, as if it is happening from a very far distance, and as if they are blind and deaf and do not hear the distress of the people of Syria, so it is not them who should save them as Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ
"But if they ask you for help in respect of the deen, it is your duty to help them"
(Al-Anfaal, 8:72)
And it is an obligation upon them, if they had any remaining shame, to move their armies that are stationed in their barracks to save their brethren in Syria and rid them of the tyrant of al-Sham. The people of Syria with the help of their brothers in the surrounding Islamic land are able, Allah willing, to eliminate the tyrant and form the rule of Islam in al-Sham, the center of Dar al-Islam, without the imperialist Kuffar intervening to construct a new regime that is no different from the old regime, only with a change in the shade of face, so Syria shall return to the rule of the Taghoot again after the sun of the rule of Islam almost shined in the land of al-Sham once again.
The Imperial Kuffar have never entered a land without corrupting it and demolishing its buildings and vandalizing its foundations, and the images of this still remain and have not been erased, indeed some of them still speak of their crime, and testify to their abusive treatment. Military intervention is a great upheaval and malignant evil, so stand guard against it. Beware of rushing to request their support assuming that they will rescue you, otherwise you will be regretful when regret is of no use.
فَتَرَى الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ يُسَارِعُونَ فِيهِمْ يَقُولُونَ نَخْشَى أَنْ تُصِيبَنَا دَائِرَةٌ فَعَسَى اللَّهُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ بِالْفَتْحِ أَوْ أَمْرٍ مِنْ عِنْدِهِ فَيُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا أَسَرُّوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ نَادِمِينَ
"Yet you see those with sickness in their hearts rushing to them, saying, 'We fear the wheel of fate may turn against us.' But it may well be that Allah will bring about victory or some other contingency from Him. Then they will deeply regret their secret thoughts."
(Al-Maaida, 5:52)
إِنَّ فِي هَذَا لَبَلَاغًا لِقَوْمٍ عَابِدِينَ
"Certainly there is a transmission in this for people who worship."
(Al-Anbiyyaa, 21:106)
Hizb ut Tahrir
21 Shawwal 1434 AH
28 August 2013 CE

Q&A: The Hukm (ruling) of Women who Participate on the Battlefield & Relationship of the Islamic State with Belligerent States


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Assalamu alaikum to my brother, Sheikh and Ameer.

1. In a discussion I had with one of the Shabab, we disagreed in regards to the women in the situation of war. Does the Hukm (ruling) of the women that go out to the battle field to encourage the army apply upon them or does the Hukm of Asraa' (captives/prisoners of war) apply to them whilst acknowledging that today there are women fighters like men in terms of carrying weapons, using aircraft, artillery or participate in naval warfare....

2) The following was stated in the publication of Introduction to the Constitution of the Khilafah State, (Mashroo' Dustoor Dawlat ul-Khilafah) in the fourth point of Article 188: "(In regards to) the actual warring states like Israel for example it is obligatory to take with it the state of war as the basis for all actions and dealings just as if we are in an actual war with it and this is whether a Hudnah (truce) exists between them or not, and all of its subjects are forbidden from entering the lands..." I referred to this article in the book Introduction to the Constitution, and I did not find any details explaining this article and its four points. The question here is: Is it permitted for the Khilafah State to have a Hudnah (treaty) with the Jewish entity whilst it is usurping our lands?

Ziyad Ziyad


Wa alaikum assalam wa Rahmat Allahu wa Barakatahu,

Firstly: Yes, the Hukm (ruling) in respect to the women who go out to the battle field whether to encourage the troops or fight alongside them, is the same Hukm. However it is not permitted to kill the women who have come out to the battle scene to encourage the soldiers whereas it is permitted to kill those who are fighting. This is in accordance to the Hadith that is agreed upon on the authority of Naafi' that Abdullah Ibn 'Umar (ra) informed him: 

"That a woman had been found killed in one of the battles of the Prophet (saw): فَأَنْكَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَتْلَ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ "So the Messenger of Allah (saw) condemned the killing of women and children." 

This is in addition to a Saheeh Hadeeth collected by Abu Dawood from 'Umar Bin Al-Muraqqa' Bin Saifi Bin Rabaah who said: My father narrated that his grandfather Rabaah Bin Rabee' said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) in a military expedition and saw the people gathering around something so he sent for a man and said: «انْظُرْ عَلَامَ اجْتَمَعَ هَؤُلَاءِ؟» "Go and look at what they are gathering around?" He returned and said: Around a woman who has been killed. So he (saw) said:«مَا كَانَتْ هَذِهِ لِتُقَاتِلَ» "This one did not participate in the fighting." The Mafhoom (understanding) from this statement is that had she been fighting then it would have been permissible to kill her.

This is the difference; however in all other Ahkam, there is no difference between women who go to the battlefield to encourage the troops and those who fight alongside the troops.

This all applies to the case when women go out to the battlefield. However if the women remain in their houses without exiting to the battlefields then there is nothing in that regards to them.

And in all circumstances, the application of the Shariah rulings is referred to the Khaleefah and not to the leaders of the battlefields. And the action of the Khaleefah proceeds in accordance to the requirements of the war policy in dealing with the enemies. Since it is from the war-related dealings, which is at the discretion of the Khaleefah's command. He acts according to what he deems fit in regards to the enemy in agreement with the Ahkam Shari'.

As for the Hukm (legal ruling) of the Asraa (captives/prisoners of war), this applies to the male fighters because the word 'Aseer' (captive) when it is mentioned refers to the male fighter. The Hukm of the Asraa is mentioned in Surah Muhammad (saw) in the following Aayah: 

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

"So, when you meet (in fight Jihaad In Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, Then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered] but if it had been Allah's will, He himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets You fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed In the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." [Muhammad: 4]

Therefore they are either released (Mannan) or they are ransomed by money or a prisoner exchange with Muslims captives or captives from the Ahl al-Dhimmah. Other than these two options is not permitted.

Secondly: The relationship of the Islamic State with belligerent countries (that are in an actual state of war) (Muharabah Fi'lan).

It appears that you still have an older version of the book, Introduction to the Constitution, as you mentioned that this is Article 188 whilst in the official version of 1431 AH (2010) it is Article 189. And secondly in the older version the subject of truce (hudnah) in the case of the actual war was not explained in detail whilst in the new official adopted version it has been detailed. We explain in it that the permanent truce (hudnah) is not permitted as it means the abandoning of Jihad. However, a temporary truce may be held with the disbelieving (kufr) countries by the entity on the land have not yet opened by Muslims. The Daleel (evidence) for this is the Truce of Al-Hudhaibiyah with the Quraish who were upon land that Muslims had yet to conquer.

As for the entity that is established entirely upon usurped Islamic land then it is not permitted to contract a Hudnah (truce) with it albeit permanent or temporary. The reality of the Truce of Al-Hudhaibiyah with the Quraish does not apply upon it because the reality is different. This is because the Quraish were established upon land which had not previously been conquered by the Muslims whereas the Jewish entity is established upon land which it has usurped from the Muslims. So the reality is different and as such the Treaty of Al-Hudhaibiyah is not applied upon it. Rather it is obligatory for the state of actual war to maintain this state of actual war whether or not a Hudnah has been convened between it and the illegitimate rulers in the Muslim lands. This continues until the usurping entity is removed and the land that has been usurped is returned to its rightful people. 

((وَأَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ))

"And expel them from where they have expelled you."

This is because the Hudnah (truce) with the usurping entity means its recognition, its surrender of the land to the usurpers. This is forbidden in accordance to the Shariah and indeed it is a major crime and the one who does this will carry its sin.

The subject is discussed in full detail in Introduction to the Constitution.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
16 Sha'aban 1434


Q&A: The meaning (making my own Ijtihad) According to the Scholars and Mujtahideen


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


The book The System of Islam states: [Thirdly: If there is an opinion which is intended to unify the Muslims for their own good, then it is allowed for the Mujtahid to leave the result of his Ijtihad, and to take the judgment that intends to unify the Muslims, as happened with 'Uthman (R.A) when he was given the Bay'ah.] End

And the following is stated in the book The Islamic Personality Volume I: (Fourthly: If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims for their own good, then it is allowed for the Mujtahid to leave the result of his Ijtihad, as happened with ‘Uthman (ra) when he was given the Bay'ah as Khalifah. It has been reported about 'Abdur-Rahman b. 'Awf (ra) that, after he consulted the people individually and together, in secret and openly, he gathered the people in the mosque, ascended them to the minbar and made a long supplication. He then called 'Ali (ra), held his hand and said: ‘do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah (SWT) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (SAW) by Abu Bakr  And 'Umar?' Ali (ra) replied: ‘I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger, but I will exercise my own Ijtihad.' So ‘Abdur-Rahman b. ‘Awf (ra) let go of his hand and then called for 'Uthman (ra) and said to him:‘do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr  And 'Umar?' Uthman (ra) replied: ‘By Allah (swt) yes!' 'Abdur-Rahman (R.A) raised his head towards the ceiling of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman's hand, and said three times: ‘O Allah (SWT), hear and bear witness!

And the question is that I found it in other narrations read as "but to the best I can and to the extent of my ability" and "to the extent of my knowledge and ability", so is it the same meaning as: "that I will exercise my own Ijtihad"? Also, I read another narration that Ali bin Abi Talib agreed but said (as much as I can), so what is the validity of that?


Yes, there is no difference between those phrases according to the scholars and Mujtahideen, and to clarify this I say:

-          It is mentioned in Ibn Kathir's The Beginning and the End: "So come to me Ali, so he came to me under the minbar and ‘Abdur-Rahman took his hand and said "Do you pledge that you will rule according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the actions of the two Khaleefahs after him?' Ali (ra) replied: ‘By Allah, No, rather according to my efforts and extent of my ability..." End

-          It is mentioned in Tabari's History: "And Ali was summoned, and he said 'Do you promise to act according the Allah's Kitab and the Sunnah of his Prophet and the precedent of the two Khalifas after him?' He said: I want to do and act to the extent of my knowledge and power..." End

And perhaps when you read the likes of these narrations you supposed that "to exercise my own Ijtihad" is different from "to the best I can and to the extent of my ability", and from "to the extent of my knowledge and ability", but they have the same meaning. For Ali (ra) had differentiated between following the Kitab and Sunnah and following the actions of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, as he agreed to follow the Kitab and Sunnah, but exempted the actions of Abu Bakr and Omar for his capability and actions, meaning his Ijtihad.

And this is what the scholars understood, and it is mentioned in the preface and summary of evidences for the Qadi Abi Bakr al-Baqlani' al-Maliki  who died in the year 403 AH the following:

"And they said 'how can 'Abdur-Rahman's allegiance to Othman be valid when he pledged allegiance to him under the condition that he follow the rulings of Abu Bakr and 'Umar', and it has been narrated that he said to Ali we give you the Bayah and give allegiance to you provided that you rule according to Allah's Kitab and the Sunnah of his Prophet and the Sunnah of the two Sheikhs after him and Ali said 'One like me cannot be more prominent but I make Ijtihad according to my opinion' and he offered that to 'Uthman and he agreed to the condition and gave him allegiance..." End. So he had conveyed with the phrase "Ijtihad according to my opinion."

And likewise, Sarkhasi who died in 483 AH has mentioned in his Usul this understanding, saying:

"Then 'Umar made the issue consultative after he recommended six persons and they agreed to make 'Abdur-Rahman responsible for the appointment after he withdrew himself, so he offered to Ali that he act according to the opinion of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and he said 'I will act according to Allah's Kitab and the Sunnah of his Prophet and then make Ijtihad according to my own opinion' and then he also offered this condition to 'Uthman and he accepted it and appointed him" End. So he conveyed with the phrase "make Ijtihad according to my own opinion."

And this is a known fact even in research institutes in the modern era, and in the Islamic University of Medina's Deanship of Academic Research Journal (1423 AH/2002) is the following:

"Abdul Rahman bin 'Awf gathered the Muslims in the Masjid... and called Ali, and 'Abdur-Rahman had authorized the selecting of the Khalifah after he had withdrew himself, given that the Muslims would follow him by giving allegiance to who he gave allegiance to.

And 'Abdur-Rahman placed his hand in the hand of Ali saying that we give you allegiance that you act according to Allah's Kitab and the Sunnah of his Prophet and the Ijtihad of the two Sheikhs - meaning Abu Bakr and Omar- and Ali did not agree to the Ijtihad of the two Sheikhs and said: Instead I will make Ijtihad according to my own opinion, so he pushed his hand and called 'Uthman (ra) and he accepted the Ijtihad of the two Sheikhs though what happened after that is what happened." End

And because of this there is no contradiction between "I will follow my own Ijtihad", and " to the best I can and to the extent of my ability", and "to the extent of my knowledge and ability," for all of them are the same according to the scholars according to what Allah has given them in knowledge, so if any of these phrases are used to express it then it is correct, especially if the issue is in the setting of extracting a judgment from the evidences as is in our book, and therefore if you see it mentioned as "I will follow my own Ijtihad" instead of "to the best I can and to the extent of my ability" or "to the extent of my knowledge and ability" then there is nothing in that if it was in the case of extracting a judgment.

-          As for what came in the question about what Imam Ahmad extracted in his Musnad, he said: "I said to 'Abdur-Rahman bin Awf: ‘How did you give the Bay'ah to 'Uthman instead of Ali?' He said: ‘What is my fault?' I began with Ali, so I said: ‘I give you the Bay'ah on Allah's Kitab and the Sunnah of his Prophet, and the precedent of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.' And he said: ‘In that which I am able to.' He said: ‘Then I offered it to 'Uthman, and he accepted it.' End. This is a weak chain (isnad), Sufyan bin Waki' has been described as weak more than once, in his book Al-Taqreeb, Al-Hafith said, "Sufyan bin Waki', his hadith has been dropped," and likewise Abu Zar'a Al-Razi described him as weak in his book The Weak Ones, and Ibn Abi Hatim in The Wound and the Amendment quoted him in it as saying "I asked Abu Zar'a about Sufyan bin Waki' as that he had said that he lies, and he said yes". And therefore, the Hadith is weak and not reliable.

10 Rabi' I 1434


Q&A: Does the Hadith (thani athuboot) Reach the Rank of Mutawatir on the Grounds that Part of it has Taken Place


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmat Allahu wa Barakatu, there are speculative Ahadith (thaniyya athuboot) that we use as proof when we interact with people to spread the idea of Islam when we herald the tidings of Allah's Prophet (saw) such as the Hadith:

«تَكُونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فِيكُمْ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ... ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ»
"Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills...  Then there will be a Rightly Guided Khilafah upon the ways of the Prophethood."

The question: This Hadith is speculative and speaks about the political conditions that will pass on the Ummah, and one of the meanings of the Hadith is that the Prophet divided the conditions into five conditions (the Prophethood - Rightly-Guided Khilafah - biting rule - oppressive rule - Rightly-Guided Khilafah), so when we see that four fifths of the Hadith have fallen on the Ummah, does this not promote this Hadith to the rank of Mutawatir, on the grounds that part of it has taken place?


The Hadith is sufficient which holds the meaning of a call to action, whether it is Mutawatir or speculative (thanniya),as long as it is a Sahih Hadith, that to strongly encourage action according to what it contains of Fard.

For example, the Hadith:
«لَتُفْتَحَنَّ الْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ، فَلَنِعْمَ الْأَمِيرُ أَمِيرُهَا، وَلَنِعْمَ الْجَيْشُ ذَلِكَ الْجَيْشُ»
"Constantinople will be conquered, what an excellent leader is its leader and what an excellent army is its army" (Ahmad)

Even though the Hadith conveys news it also has the meaning of a call to action, and therefore every Muslim ruler was keen that the Hadith be realized during his rule, so they send equipped armies to Constantinople, until Allah bestowed Muhammad al-Fatih with this conquest, and like this Hadith is the Hadith about fighting the Jewish state and its eradication... and likewise the Hadith about the coming Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, so it does not matter if the Hadith is Mutawatir or not Mutawatir as long as the Hadith is Sahih, and we continue on the path so that it will be realized on our account Insha'allah, and take glad tidings, and are assured of its realization sooner or later, and do not tire ourselves dealing with the details to know if it is Mutawatir or Ahad.

With all this, the realization of part of the Hadith reassures us that the rest of the Hadith will be realized, like the conquest of Rome after the conquest of Constantinople, as the conquest of both cities is mentioned in another of the Prophet's Hadiths, but as I mentioned earlier, there is no need to delve into the Tawatir of a Hadith that means a call to action because the Hadith that is Sahih but speculative (thanni) is sufficient for action, conviction and assurance, and to take tidings of its realization, and the Muslim is keen to win this favor.

Regarding your statement: "as long as the part of the Hadith has been realized, do we consider it Mutawatir?"  The answer is that the Mutawatir Hadith has certain requirements for the chain of narration that is adopted by the Science of Hadith to determine if it is Mutawatir, meaning that according to this science, the Hadith being Mutawatir does not depend on the realization of the Hadith or not, because the Mutawatir Hadith is judged according to its chain of narration, and nevertheless the realization of parts of the Hadith gives the heart more reassurance in the correctness of the Hadith, and it is an incentive to vigorously act to realize the remaining part, and Allah the Almighty is the Guardian of success.

18 Rabi' I 1434

Q&A: Reality of Iran in relation to US Policy

Question: What is the reality of Iran in relation to U.S. policy? In other words, does Iran follow its own project in the region, independent from America? Can we say that Iran has a message to spread in the region, namely the Jaafari Madhab? Finally, what is America's actual position towards Iranian nuclear weapons?
Answer: To answer that we have to briefly review the reality of the Iranian regime and the course of its politics since the outbreak of the revolution and the proclamation of the Republic and finally the relationship of all of that with America:
1. The American role in the Iranian revolution was obvious from the very beginning. During Khomeini's stay at the Neauphle-le-Château in France, he was visited by delegates from the White House with Khomeini agreeing to cooperate with America. Consequently American newspapers reported about the agreement and the meetings that took place there... These facts were recently revealed by the first president of the Republic of Iran Abul Hassan Banu Sadr in an interview with Al-Jazeera on 12/1/2000. He confirmed that delegates from the White House came to the Neauphle-le-Château in France, where Khomeini lived wherein they were greeted by Yazdi, Bazarkan, Mousawi and Ardibaili... There have been many meetings between the two parties, most notably the October meeting which took place in the suburbs of Paris, during which agreements between the Reagan and Bush group and Khomeini's group were signed. Khomeini then declared his willingness to cooperate with the United States on the condition not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. Shortly after Khomeini returned on board of a French plane to Tehran, so America applied pressure on Shahpur Bakhtiar to pass over the rule to Khomeini and threatened the leaders of the Iranian army if they stood in Khomeini's way.
Since then Khomeini became the leader and the ruler. And a constitution similar to the constitutions in the other Muslim countries was drafted according to the Western system of capitalism. Iran's constitution imitates Western constitutions, such as the republican system of governance, the partition between different ministries, parliamentary work, the separation of powers, and the issue of competency. All of these are in accordance with the capitalist regimes. As for the statement that the "official religion of Iran is Islam and the twelve Ja'fari school of thought" this then is similar to what can be found in most constitutions in the Muslim countries, which does not mean that the state is based on Islam nor that its message is Islam. Rather this statement is merely related to decrees and holidays, and accommodates the people's beliefs and their worship that pays respect to certain matters of their lives. The Iranian Constitution does not provide that this Deen forms its doctrine or that this Madhab (school of thought) is the state's message or an aim of foreign policy, which is in fact nationalistic and patriotic. The Iranian state adheres to the current international system of enrollment in international and regional organizations based on capitalism, such as the Iranian membership in the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. None of its international relations are based on Islam. Hence it needs to be noted that the Iranian state does not carry a specific message nor does it pursue a specific project based on Islam. Rather the nationalistic and patriotic taint is apparent in the Iranian regime, reflected in the policy of maintaining the existing system as well as the structure of the state and its territory. We contacted Khomeini in the beginning of the revolution and advised him not to cooperate with America, and to declare an Islamic constitution as rendered by us, and we sent him a communique analyzing and explaining the defects of the Iranian Constitution. Khomeini did not accept our advice and proceeded with a constitution that contradicts Islam, in a republican system according to Western-style capitalism.
2. As for the issue of the Madhab (school of thought) specified as the official Madhab of the regime, it was not defined as a message or a project to be promoted, neither are the system and the constitution based on it, nor are the articles of the constitution extracted from it. Rather the basic materials that relate to the system of ruling and foreign policy and those related to the military and security are taken from the capitalist system, similar to the Saudi regime that exploits the Hanbali Madhab which is widely spread in the Hijaz to achieve the interests of the system. Furthermore Iran exploits the confessional aspect to gain followers and supporters or those willing to work with them. It agitates their sense of fanatic sectarianism, thus facilitating their use for national interests and not to serve the Ja'fari Madhabi or the Shiites, evidenced through the fact that Iran does not aid the Shi'a nor the Ja'fari Madhab unless it fosters national Iranian interest. If secularism promotes its interest, Iran pushes Islam, Shi'ism and the Ja'fari Madhab aside. They support the Iraqi regime and the Syrian regime, which are both secular systems affiliated with America. Although there are mainly Shiites residing in the Eastern provinces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and given the fact that these areas also contain the Saudi oil fields, Iran has on a number of occasions supported uprisings in order to weaken Saudi Arabia. It used a similar policy in Bahrain which called for Saudi Arabia to send troops to Bahrain...
Iran does not bother with the sectarian aspect if this contradicts its national interests. Azerbaijan at the end of 1989 sought its liberation from the Soviet Union and people destroyed the borders with Iran in order to unify with it, bringing about massacres during the beginning of 1990 at the hands of the Russian aggressors who had entered Baku to prevent the establishment of a system not following their lead, and to help their old communist agents into power. However Iran did not help the people of Azerbaijan in the face of this Russian attack that violated the rights of the Muslims who sought freedom from the Russian yoke and the clutches of the communists; as a matter of fact, the majority of Azerbaijan's Muslim population follow Iran's official Madhab. Iran did not help Azerbaijan in the face of the Armenians who were sponsored by the Russians in the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan during 1994 and displaced more than one million Azerbaijanis from their land. This tragic situation is still in existence. Indeed, Iran has developed its relations with Armenia at the expense of Azerbaijan! Not only that, but Iran has supported factions that have nothing to do with Islam, such as the faction of Michel Aoun or secular movements like the movement of Nabih Berri and others in Lebanon of those marching on the path paved for them by America.
3. All of the political work in the region carried out by Iran is in congruence and accordance with American agendas:
A. In Lebanon, Iran founded and armed a party from the followers of its Madhab and, such that it became a special army separate from the Lebanese army, and the Lebanese regime acknowledged it and their weaponry, knowing that the Lebanese system is a secular regime that follows American politics. The Lebanese regime does not allow any other party to bear arms nor did it acknowledge the arming of any other party. The Party of Iran in Lebanon with the support of the Syrian regime associated with America as did Iran, and America did not prevent the Lebanese regime from allowing Iran's Hezb intervention in Syria to prop up the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad, rather American gave its implied consent to the intervention of this party in Syria without being hampered by the Lebanese army.
B. When America occupied Iraq it was met with an unexpected resistance, so it entered Iran into Iraq to help influence those belonging to its Madhab, to affect them and prevent their movement against the occupation, event to make them stand against the resistance, even confronting it and giving legitimacy to the occupation and to the established system. Especially after 2005 America allowed the ascension of a coalition of pro-Iranian parties into power, led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then al-Maliki, and these governments were installed by America and are linked to it. Maliki's government, backed by Iran, signed security and strategic agreements with the United States to maintain its influence after the official end of the occupation of Iraq, indicating American satisfaction with the role played by Iran whose officials admitted its cooperation with the United States in the occupation and its work to secure the stability of American influence in Iraq. Iran opened its embassy in Iraq immediately after the occupation, and al-Jaafari was not elected until the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi visited Baghdad in 2005 at the height of the occupation. The two sides condemned the acts of resistance to the occupation under the pretext of condemning terrorism in Iraq. Jaafari's visit to Iran was used to sign several agreements, including a cooperation agreement in the field of intelligence between them to establish security and control of border crossings and linking Basra to Iran's electricity grid and the establishment of an oil pipeline between Basra and Abadan.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq at the beginning of 2008 under the spears of direct occupation. Ahmadinejad often incited whirlwinds with his remarks directed against America and against the Jewish entity, although his words were never followed by action. At the same time Ahmadinejad was the Iranian president most closely aligning with the path of U.S. policy, therefore visiting Iraq under U.S. occupation and two weeks before leaving the government he again visited Iraq to renew his support to Maliki's government, which is there to maintain U.S. influence in Iraq. On top of that Ahmadinejad visited Afghanistan in 2010 under U.S. occupation and provided support for the Karzai regime, which serves as a custodian of the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan.
C. Iran did the same in Yemen, where it won over the group of al-Houthi and armed it, who rose against the regime of Ali Salih, an agent of the British. Iran also supports the southern secular movement in Yemen who advocate secession. They in turn are also allies to America, striving to establish a pro-American secular regime in southern Yemen.
D. The relationship between Iran and the Syrian regime is an old one, dating back to the time of the first Intifada in the early 80's of the past century. Iran then supported the Syrian regime in suppressing the Muslims of Syria, so as to keep it within the American project in support of the regime led by its agents from the Assad family. Iran did this knowing that it is a secular nationalist Baathi system congruent with the regime of Saddam, which they were fighting although it had nothing to do with Islam, rather Saddam fought Islam and its people. Iran did this well aware that Saddam was linked to America, it did not defend the rights of the Muslims, they did just the opposite in declaring war against them and bringing victory to a criminal Kufur regime, and Iran continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, which includes military, economic and political ties. Iran transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at discounted prices due to the lack of reserves of energy in Syria. These political relations can particularly be observed in the Iranian interference in the Syrian revolution when the Assad regime stood on the verge of collapse. Had it not been for Iranian interference by sending troops of the Revolutionary Guards, and troops from Iran's Hezb and Maliki's militias that follow Iran, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed. The massacres of Qusair, Homs and today's chemical massacres in al-Ghouta and others bear witness to this intervention.
E. As for Afghanistan, Iran supported the U.S. occupation and the constitution laid down by the government created by America with Karzai as president, all of that was an Iranian service to America. Iran has secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani mentioned that: "If it were not for our troops fighting the Taliban, America would have sunk in the Afghan quagmire."(al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, 2/9/2002). Mohammad Ali Abtahi, vice for the former Iranian President Khatami for legal affairs and parliamentary elections in the Gulf and the Challenges of the Future Congress, held in Abu Dhabi on the evening of 1/13/2004, said: "If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would have never fallen so easily. But we received a bonus and we are within the axis of evil!" (Islam Online Net, 1/13/2004)
President Ahmadinejad has repeated the like on his visit to New York to attend the United Nations meetings in an interview with The New York Times on 9/26/2008 where he said: "Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States with regard to Afghanistan and the result of this assistance was the U.S. President's direct threat to launch a military attack against us. Our country has also provided assistance to America in the restoration of calmness and stability in Iraq. "
4. As for the issue of the nuclear program, it has been at a standstill for years, although the Jewish entity, supported and encouraged by Europe, threatened more than once over the years to strike this program. America stood in the face of the Jewish entity and prevented it from doing so. Until today America is preventing the entity from doing so... Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey on 8/12/2013 visited the Jewish entity for this purpose, such that Kuwaiti KUNA agency on 8/12/2013 reported from a radio channel of the army of the Jewish entity the following statement: "Dempsey's visit comes just days after a similar secret weeklong visit fully carried out by the commander of the U.S. Air Force Mark Welch to Israel," in which both sides refrained from talking about the nature of research taking place in it. Welch's visit was kept a secret at American request, amid tensions in the region and against the backdrop of Israeli threats to strike Iran. KUNA agency added: "Analysts believe that the commander of the U.S. Army will try to persuade his hosts to refrain from making dramatic decisions in the near future against Iran to give diplomacy a chance after the inauguration of Hassan Rohani as president of Iran."
America permitted the Jewish entity to strike the nuclear reactors of Iraq that were under construction at the time of Saddam in 1981, but it prevents the entity from striking Iranian nuclear reactors which started enriching uranium to a 20% enrichment, indicating that it is in their interest to maintain the Iranian regime that works to their advantage in the region. They want it to remain as a deterrent that frightens the Gulf States such that American influence is preserved in these countries, and America works to use it to maintain its influence in the Islamic world.
Returning back a bit, we find that from the beginning of the nuclear talks in 2003 America focused on sanctions without taking any actual action against the nuclear facilities, and frustrated the European Union and outraged the Jewish state, and every time talks were held America proposed additional sanctions as a solution to the issue without taking any military action. And America intervened repeatedly to calm "Israeli" fears, because it wants the Iranian regime to remain, and for the nuclear issue to remain open so that it does reach the nuclear bomb and meanwhile it is not resolved at all, Instead America wants it to remain, as we said, a boogeyman that frightens the gulf states, and a forward for the continuation of the presence of American military forces in the Gulf. In addition to America exploitation, it to set up a missile shield in Turkey and in central Europe under the pretext of deterring Iranian nuclear weapons and protecting it from them! This is on top of a justification for the increase in the budget of the ministry of defense.
5. As for what appears on the surface as animosity between America and Iran, it can be understood as follows:
A. The atmosphere was charged, and public opinion was charged against America before and after the revolution, and it was considered responsible for the suffering of the people and blamed for its support for the Shah and for his oppression and was described as the Great Satan. Because of that the rulers of Iran could not directly announce the resumption of talks between the two sides and afterwards the resumption of diplomatic ties, especially America's meetings with Khomeini in Paris, and American pressure on the Iranian military to not intervene against Khomeini's revolution... All this was not a secret, therefore the Iranian regime was in need of dynamic events with America as justification for sitting with them. So the hostages' incident took place in the American embassy on 4/10/1979 which resulted in the severing of diplomatic ties between Iran and America in order to strengthen Khomeini and strike his opposition and cover the reality of the relationship between the two sides. Afterwards American sources mentioned that it was a tidy American theatrical, and likewise Hasan bani Sadr mentioned in the previously mentioned interview with Al-Jazeera that "that was an agreement with the Americans and of their planning and he agreed to that after Khomeini convinced him". And both sides signed what is called the Algiers Accords on 20/1/1982 whereby the hostages were released, and that happened on the day that the American President Reagan came to power in America, and America implicitly recognized the new regime under the leadership of Khomeini when this agreement ordained the mutual respect by both sides and for each side to not intervene in the affairs of either side and the protection of the interests of both sides by the appointment of a third party, and afterwards the return of 12 billion dollars that the new regime requested from the frozen Iranian assets...
B. And for a long time, Iranian rulers have worked to foster an atmosphere for the resumption of these relations, even though secret communication continues between them and collaboration had occurred as the Iranian officials themselves revealed, and they have continued to do so... as though the continuation of this situation between the two countries benefits them; as Iran appears as though it is hostile to America to cover its dealings and progression with America in its imperial projects, and so it can be a contributing factor to the facilitation of those projects, and America appears as hostile to Iran and works against it to limit Europe and the Jews. And the public opinion against Iran in America and the West is deceived to achieve its interests in the region. Some of the rulers that have attained positions have been accused of being agents to America by the Iranians such as the President of the Republic Bani Sadr, so he was overthrown due to the presence of a strong opposition current at the time against the relationship with America that worked to overthrow him. But the President of the Republic Rafsanjani, whose relationship with America has been revealed such as Iran-gate and Iran-contra, was not overthrown because such a current did not exist at the time. And Presidents have been punished and described sometimes as reformers and moderates, and sometimes as conservatives and radicals, but a change in the Iranian policy has not been seen despite the harsher talks at times and lighter talk at other times, and it remains just talk not followed by actions and not applied in reality. And as such the American stance toward Iran has not changed despite the toughening of talk at times by the Republicans and placing it on the list of the axis of evil and the softening of talk by the democrats, but America has not taken any decisive and serious steps against Iran, and when the President Rouhani put together the new government he said: "His government will adopt in its foreign policy the prevention of threats and the elimination of tensions" (Reuters 12/8/2013). And he chose "Muhammad Jawad Tharif for the position of foreign minister, who is the former ambassador to the United Nations and was educated in the United States and was an essential participant in rounds of secret negotiations that attempted to overcome the decline in relationship between Washington and Tehran" (Reuters 12/8/2013). Rouhani more frankly announced after the elections when he said: "We do not wish to see an increase in tensions between Iran and the United States. Wisdom tells us that both countries need to think more about the future and try to sit to create solutions to the past issues and correct the matter" (Reuters 17/6/2013). American President Obama replied to him saying: "The United States is still prepared to engage in talks directly with the Iranian government with the goal of reaching a diplomatic solution that deals fully with the international community's concern over Iran's nuclear program" (same source), which means that Iran wants to end the era of secretly progressing with America, and begin a new era of openly progressing with it, but with different forms so it will appear as though it is an influential state regionally that commands involvement in regional affairs.
6. And based on what was mentioned above, we conclude the following:
The matter of doctrine that Iran has specified as official doctrine for the regime, it has not specified it as a message or project it carries, and it has not established its regime on this doctrine, nor has it adopted its constitution based on it, or its articles based on it. Instead the central articles that pertain to the system of governance and foreign policy, and the issues of military and security is taken from the capitalist system, so that it resembles the Saudi regime, which exploits the prevalent doctrine in the land, the Hanbali doctrine, to achieve the interests of the regime. As for the foreign policy for Iran, it is compatible with American interests in the region, and likewise in the larger Middle East and the Islamic lands. For example, Iran helped Washington to realize the continuation of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade or so, and also, by way of its Hezb in Lebanon, it has drawn the political landscape in Lebanon. And recently it has collaborated to maintain U.S. hegemony in Syria by way of supporting al-Assad. Thus, Iran works in Afghanistan and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq to serve American interests. As for outside the region it can be said that America has succeeded in exploiting Iran's conduct to promote its own missile shield program and tying the Gulf Cooperation Council into unbalanced security agreements, and likewise in the selling of weapons in the billions to Gulf states out of fear of Iran!
Iran is progressing with America and it understands the significance of this progression and it knows its boundaries, so it does not cross them even if it raises the tone of speech to deceive or cover up the truth as happened in the time of Nijad that saw great service to America in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and therefore America sees the regime in Iran largely as a servant to its interests to the extent that the decision making circles in America see no reason to change the regime. This is what it announced on December 12 2008, when Robert Gates in an international security conference about the relationship between America and Iran and what it should be, said: "No one wants to change the regime in Iran... and what we want to discuss is bringing about a change in policies and conduct, so that Iran will become a good neighbor to the countries in the region, instead of being a source of instability and violence."
04th Shawwal 1434 AH
21 August 2013 CE