Friday, December 27, 2013

Introduction to an Islamic Constitution for Syria and the Muslim world - Article 13

The following is the translation of an article from the book by Hizb ut-Tahrir entitled 'Introduction to the Constitution and the necessary evidences for it' which is the explanation of its draft constitution for the Khilafah state. This draft translation is from the second edition published in 2009 which was updated from the original published in 1963. Numerous brigades in Syria have agreed to the implementation of this constitution after the removal of the corrupt system that has brutally suppressed the people for decades. 



Article 13
In origin, every individual is innocent. No one should be punished without a court verdict. It is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone; and anyone who does this will be punished.

This article covers three issues: The principle of innocence, the prohibition of imposing a penalty without a judge’s sentence and the prohibition of torture.

As for the first issue, its evidence is derived from what was reported by Wa’il Ibn Hajr who said: “A man from Hadramowt and a man from Kindah came to the Messenger of Allah  and the Hadhrami said: “O Messenger of Allah , this man has taken from land which belonged to my father.” The Kindi said: “It is my land, it is in my possession and I am farming it. He has no claim over it.” the Messenger of Allah  said to the Hadhrami: “Do you have any proof?” He said: “No.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah  said: “In this case you have his oath.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah ! He is a rebel, he does not care what he swears and he does not fear of anything.” He  said: “You have no other rights over him but this” (reported by Muslim). He  also said, “the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the onus of the oath lies with the defendant”(reported by al-Bayhaqi with a sahih chain). In the first narration, the Messenger of Allah  commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; in the second narration, the Messenger of Allah  explained that in origin, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah , “He whose wealth I have taken, here is my wealth, let him take from it, and he whose back I have lashed, here is my back, let him lash it” (reported by Abu Ya’la from al-Fadl bin ‘Abbas). Al-Haythami said that in the chain of Abu Ya’la Ata’ bin Muslim, who Ibn Hibban verified as trustworthy whereas others claimed he is weak, and the remainder of the men are trustworthy. It is narrated in al-Mu’jam al-Awsat of al-Tabarani with the wording “Whoever’s back I have lashed, here is my back let him do the same to it, and whosoever’s honour I have abused here is my honour let him do the same to it, and whosoever I have taken wealth from here is my wealth let him do the same to it”. And in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah it came with the wording “Whoever’s back I have lashed, here is my back let him do the same to it, and whosoever I have taken wealth from, here is my wealth so take from it, and whosoever’s honour I have abused, here is my honour let him do the same”. The Messenger of Allah  said this in his capacity as a ruler; it means let the one who has been wrongly punished retaliate against me and this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, it is reported in the story of the mula’anah (husband’s accusation of his spouse of adultery without witnesses) that the Messenger of Allah  said “If I was going to stone anyone without proof I would have stoned her” (agreed upon and the wording is from Muslim), and this means that he  did not stone her due to the absence of clear proof even though there was doubt over her. This understanding is confirmed by what is narrated by Ibn Abbas in the narration in which the Messenger of Allah  ordered a mula’anah to be carried out between the couple (refer to Quran 24: 4-9), where the text says “So a man at the gathering said to Ibn Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah  said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman?”” He said: “No, that was a woman who used to display vice after Islam”” (agreed upon), meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven; neither through evidence and nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, but despite this the Messenger of Allah  did not stone her, for it had not been confirmed, and so he  said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone such and such woman”. The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something, thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which the Shari’ah deems to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a court of law, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a court of law.

However, the ruler reserves the right to take someone accused of a crime into custody before the charge is established, pending a court appearance to look into the charge brought against him. However, the detention should be for a limited period of time and it would be wrong to detain the accused for an indefinite period. This period must be short. Evidence about the permissibility of detaining the accused is derived from what Al-Tirmidhi reported in a hasan narration, which Ahmad also reported, and al-Hakim stated that the narration has a sahih chain, on the authority of Bahz bin Hakim on that of his father on that of his grandfather who said: “The Messenger of Allah  detained a person accused of a crime and then he released him.” It has also been reported similarly by al-Hakim on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that “The Messenger of Allah  detained someone accused of a crime for a day and a night”, and though the chain includes Ibrahim bin Khaitam who there is dispute over, it has also been reported though other chains by al-Bayhaqi in al-kubra and Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqi on the authority of Bahzi bin Hakim bin Mu’awiyah on that of his father on that of his grandfather: “The Prophet  detained someone accused of a crime for an hour during the day and then released him”. All of this is evidence about the obligation of limiting the period of detention, and that it should be for the shortest time possible, since the Messenger of Allah  detained him for a day and a night, and that he detained him for an hour during the day. Besides, this detention is not a punishment, but it is rather a detention aimed at helping with the enquiries.

As for the third matter, it denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty upon the accused before the charge against him has been established; it also denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty which Allah (swt) has made as a punishment in the hereafter, that is the Hellfire, in other words the prohibition of punishing by burning with fire. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment before establishing the charge, its evidence is derived from the narration of the Messenger of Allah  in which he  was reported to have said “If I were to stone anyone without proof, I would have stoned her” (agreed upon from the narration of Ibn Abbas), despite the fact that she was known to be an adulteress according to what is understood from the words of Ibn Abbas. If it were fitting to inflict punishment upon the accused in order to make them confess, the Messenger of Allah  would have tortured that woman to make her confess, knowing that she was indiscreet about her illicit behaviour. It is absolutely forbidden to punish the accused and therefore it is forbidden to beat the accused before the charge has been established. It is also forbidden to insult him or to inflict upon him any punishment as long as his guilt has not been confirmed. This is supported by what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas: “A man consumed alcohol and got intoxicated; he was spotted staggering in a mountain pass so he was taken to the Messenger of Allah . As he neared the house of Abbas, he gave his escort the slip and entered Abbas’s house and hid behind him. They mentioned this to the Messenger of Allah , so he  laughed and said: “Did he do it?” Then he  did not order them with anything regarding him” (reported by Abu Dawud and Ahmad, with the wording from Abu Dawud). So the Messenger of Allah  did not apply the punishment upon that man because he did not confess and nor were the charges against him established in his presence. This means that he was accused of drunkenness but this was not confirmed and thus he was not tortured in order to make him confess and no penalty was imposed upon him just for the mere accusation. Therefore, it would be wrong to inflict any punishment on the accused prior to the establishment of the charge before a competent judge and in a court of law.

As for the reports of “al-ifk” (the lie) incident that ‘Ali (ra) beat the slave-girl before the Messenger of Allah , it should be recognised that the slave-girl was not accused, thus it cannot be used as evidence denoting the permissibility of beating the accused. Besides the narration of ‘Ali’s (ra) beating of Burayrah, the Messenger of Allah’s  slave-girl, was reported by Bukhari and he said that ‘Ali (ra) said to the Messenger of Allah  “Ask the slave-girl”. It was the Messenger of Allah  who did the asking. Bukhari did not mention that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl. To quote from the narration “‘Ali bin Abi Talib said O Messenger of Allah , Allah has not made it hard upon you and there are plenty of other women apart from her, and if you asked the slave-girl she would tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah  summoned the slave-girl and said: “O Burayrah!…” In another narration from al-Bukhari, it was reported: “The Messenger of Allah  came to my house and asked about my slave-girl, so she said: “No by Allah, I do not know of any blemish, apart from the fact that she would sleep to the point that the sheep would enter and eat her dough. Some of his companions rebuked her and said: “Tell the truth to the Messenger of Allah…”, and al-Bukhari did not mention that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl.

However, in other reports, it was mentioned that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl. Ibn Hisham mentioned that he did beat her. In the Sirah of Ibn Hisham it was reported: “As for ‘Ali, he said: “O Messenger of Allah  Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave-girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah  called Burayrah to ask her, and ‘Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying: “Tell the Messenger of Allah  the truth.” To which she replied: “I know only good of her””. Assuming that this report is sound, it however does not stipulate the permissibility of beating the accused, because the slave-girl Burayrah was not accused in this case and it cannot be said that she was a witness. She was not beaten for being a witness because the Messenger of Allah  did ask other people but did not beat them. He  asked Zaynab Bint Jahsh and he did not beat her, despite the fact that her sister Hamnah Bint Jahsh used to spread rumours about Aaisha (ra) as al-Bukahri reported in the narration of al-ifk: “…And her sister Hamna set about fighting her battle, so she perished alongside those who perished”. Hence, Zaynab was suspected of knowing something and she was questioned, but she was never beaten. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that Burayrah was beaten in her quality as a witness; rather, she was rather beaten in her quality as the slave-girl of the Messenger of Allah . The Messenger of Allah  is entitled to beat his slave-girl and to order her beating. The Messenger of Allah did ask his slave-girl and he asked others as well and at the same time he kept silent over Ali’s (ra) beating of the slave-girl and over the companions reprimanding her. However he  did not beat any other person and nor did he keep silent over the beating of any other person, which indicates that he  permitted her beating because she was his  slave-girl, and one is entitled to beat his slave-girl in order to discipline her or to investigate a matter. Therefore, this narration cannot be used as evidence about the permissibility of beating the accused and the evidence pertaining to the prohibition of his beating stands; this is reflected in the saying of the Messenger of Allah : “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would have stoned her” (agreed upon from Ibn Abbas). Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to beat, insult, reprimand or torture the accused. It is however permitted to detain him because evidence exists about this.

This is as far as the prohibition of inflicting punishment upon the accused prior to establishing the charge is concerned. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment which Allah (swt) has made a punishment in the Hereafter, its evidence is reflected in what al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ikrimah who said: “A group of apostates were brought to the Amir of the believers ‘Ali so he burnt them; Ibn Abbas heard of this and said: If I had been him, I would not have burnt them because the Messenger of Allah  has prohibited this by saying: Do not punish with the punishment of Allah”. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah  said “No one can punish by fire except Allah. Abu Dawud reported from the narration of Ibn Mas’ud with the words, “It is not proper that anyone should punish by fire except the Lord of the fire”.  Therefore, if the accused was brought before a competent judge in a court of law and shown to have committed the crime he was accused of, he should not be punished by fire, nor by that which is similar to it, such as electricity and nor by anything else which Allah (swt) punishes with. Furthermore, it is forbidden to inflict any punishment from among those not decreed by the Legislator (swt). This is so because the Legislator (swt) has determined the punishments to be imposed upon the guilty parties, and these are killing, lashing, stoning, exile, cutting, and imprisonment, destruction of property, imposing a fine, vilification and branding any part of the body. Apart from these, it is forbidden to inflict any other type of punishment upon anyone. Hence, no one should be punished by burning with fire, though it is permitted to burn his property, and nor should anyone be punished by pulling his nails, nor by pulling his eyebrows, nor by electrocution, nor by drowning, nor by pouring cold water over him, nor by starving him, nor by letting him go cold and nor by anything similar. Punishing the accused should be confined to the penalties decreed by the Shari’ah and the ruler is forbidden from applying any other form of punishment apart from these. Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone, and whoever does so will be violating the Shari’ah. If it is established that someone has tortured anyone else, he will be punished. These are the evidences of this article.

Q&A: Can a father prevent his daughter from taking a job?

Question:
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
I would like to ask you regarding a job offered to me but my father refused it from the point of view that this society is corrupt, and that his duty as a father is to keep his daughter away from malicious issues that are circulated within some members of the community.
As for the context of the work, I will work as a guide and paramedic to children at the age of nine. The guidance will be for Jerusalem; its gates, mosques and everything related to it. I will be working with a female colleague. My father however, told me that this work will not be limited to my personal work with this colleague, and that matters will evolve to other undesired embranchments. To my knowledge, and as it was given to me that I will be dealing with this colleague, but my father insists to reject this work as much as my insistence to engage in this experience. He told me that any such action is unacceptable before the establishment of the Khilafah state and the presence of a shepherd protecting his citizens, what is your opinion?
From: Z.G

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
The priority for you is to obey your father who loves for you serenity and purity. Your work as a guide to children for Jerusalem, if it is limited to this, is Mubah (permissible). But the institute that you will work with may not be limited to work with children, it is likely to request subsequent activities which involve mingling of men and women or so; and apparently this is what your father fears. After all, you with no doubt know that the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, men and women, refrained from certain types of Mubah that bordered the Haram (forbidden) so as not to fall into Haram.
In conclusion: Discuss the issue with your father; if he becomes convinced that this work is not mixed with dust from the haram and he becomes reassured that the institute, which you would like to work with, will commit to be free of mixing of men and women, and the work is limited to instruct children. If he is reassured, than that is good. However, if he does not agree with you, than obey him. Even if that work is a pure permissible work, and your father does not want you to work in that job, then you should obey him and you will have the reward. Allah, the Almighty has coupled worshiping Him with kindness to parents, and as part of being kind to them is to obey them in what is good. He سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَقَضَى رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا
"And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment"
(Al-Isra: 23)
And as directed by Ahmad in his Musnad, that Abdullah bin Amr said: My father had complained to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم about me. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«أَطِعْ أَبَاكَ مَا دَامَ حَيًّا، وَلَا تَعْصِهِ»
"Obey your father as long as he is alive, and do not disobey him."
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
20th Safar 1435 AH
23/12/2013 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Defamation of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Methodology of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم

To the GEO TV administration,
Assalamu alaikum,
On 18 December 2013, your TV channel broadcast a heinous accusation by Mr. Kamran Khan that Hizb ut-Tahrir took responsibility for an attack on the Pakistan Army, through its spokesman. Please note that other TV stations, on the same day, made the record clear that a little known and shadowy group perpetrated this crime, as did the press media the very next day.
This heinous accusation is an affront on several levels.
1. It is an affront to your reputation as a credible news source for Muslims. It is widely known within society that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party whose goal is the resumption of the Islamic way of life through the re-establishment of the Khilafah. In fact, it is so widely known that one other news station who ran a similar accusation within minutes retracted it, as persistence upon such obvious falsehood would harm only its narrator. Yet, it has been a full four days and your institution has done nothing to rescue this black mark on your reputation. Be assured this accusation did not harm the 000's reputation, Alhamdulillah, but yours is damaged in need of urgent repair.
2. It is an affront to your responsibility to alert the public of the real danger to the country, which is the extensive American presence within the country which has arranged not a single attack, but an entire campaign of bombings and assassinations to ignite the fires of chaos as a basis for ensnaring our armed forces in a prolonged low intensity conflict which is bleeding our country dry. As such the American presence on our soil is functioning as it has the world over, for decades, from Central America all the way over to South East Asia, establishing American hegemony over the skulls and bones of people. Was it not better for you to inform the people of this real and grave danger in your broadcasts, rather than allowing the invention of lies through your channel?
3. It is an affront to the methodology of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم that Hizb ut-Tahrir has made known that it has adopted since 1953 in over forty different countries. The methodology of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم included political struggle with the tyrant rulers, culturing the masses regarding this pure Deen and seeking the material support (Nussrah) from the men of war. And it is so well known that Hizb ut-Tahrir has adopted this methodology that previously the mouthpieces of the Pakistani regime have always expressed alarm at Hizb ut-Tahrir's call for the Nussrah from the armed forces. This alarm was seen very recently, in these days, in the speech and writings of the regime's mouthpieces as a response to the "Open Letter to General Raheel Sharif from Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan" which called for this Shariah duty. So now are the people to believe, and the Raheel-Nawaz regime to make a show of believing, that Hizb ut-Tahrir would seek to harm the very armed forces from which it is obliged by Islam to seek Nussrah from? And where do we stand on the Day of Judgment before Allah سبحانه وتعالى for maligning and making mockery of the methodology of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم in such a way?
So Hizb ut-Tahrir asks you to right this wrong, both restoring to us our right and to yourselves your credibility. We love for you to gain the Ajar from Allah سبحانه وتعالى by broadcasting our statement on your TV channel and print it within your newspapers. Of course, such a principled step would obviate the need on our part to resort to legal proceedings in the immediate future.
Wassalamu Alaikum,
Shahzad Shaikh
Deputy Spokesperson of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Wilayah Pakistan
Monday, 20 Safar 1435 AH
23/12/2013 CE
No: LC13111

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The Prince of Martyrs

O you who believe in Allah سبحانه وتعالى and RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم!
RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadith,
»سيد الشهداء حمزة ورجل قام إلى إمام جائر فنصحه فقتله«
"The prince of martyrs is Hamzah and the man who stood facing a tyrant ruler, gave him the correct advice and the ruler killed him." [Reported by al-Haakim]
O you who account the tyrant rulers of today!
Our master, RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم, compared the man who accounted the tyrant ruler with the prince of martyrs, lion of Allah, beloved uncle of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم, Hamza (ra).
So who is this Hamza (ra) that we seek to be compared to? It is Hamza (ra) who was a shield for the Muslims in their time of need, due to his princely status amongst the Qur'aysh. It is Hamza (ra) who was the attraction for many to embrace Islam, from the tribes, due to that status. It is Hamza (ra) who embraced Islam and stood so firmly upon it that he angered the enemy to an extent they appointed a slave Wahshiy, bribing him with freedom and urging him to maintain a single focus in Uhud, the martyrdom of Hamza (ra). It is Hamza (ra) about whom, when he صلى الله عليه وسلم saw his martyred body declared, "I will never have a worse loss in my life than yours. I have never been more outraged than now... if Allah destines me to win over the Qur'aysh, I will cut thirty of them into pieces." And it is upon these words from RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم about the prince of martyrs, Hamza (ra), that Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed,
ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ ضَلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ
وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ
وَاصْبِرْ وَمَا صَبْرُكَ إِلاَّ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ تَحْزَنْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ تَكُ فِي ضَيْقٍ مِمَّا يَمْكُرُونَ
"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them with that which is best. Truly, your Lord best knows who has strayed from His path, and He best knows those who are guided. And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you have patience with them, then it is better for those who are patient. And be patient, and your patience will not be, but by the help of Allah. And do not grieve over them, and do not be distressed by their plots."
(An-Nahl: 125-127)
Indeed, this Ummah does not grieve over its martyrs, nor does it count them, for they are assured by their Lord of Paradise and their faces will be lit with glee at a time when those awaiting for judgment will be steeped in fear. Such is the status of martyrs, so what of their princes?
O you who aspire to be princes of the martyrs!
It is a path that RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم committed the Ummah to, to hold the tyrant to account. It is the highest of the worships, for which the minds do not slow, the limbs do not tire and the hearts yearn for the sweet rewards from it. Accounting the ruler, who is the origin of the Maroof, if he is good, and the Munkar, if he is evil, is obliged. Enjoining the good and forbidding the munkar, seizing the hand of the Oppressor is commended in the highest terms and neglect of it is condemned with the harshest of warnings. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
»وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَتَأْمُرُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلَتَنْهَوُنَّ عَنْ الْمُنْكَرِ أَوْ لَيُوشِكَنَّ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عِقَابًا مِنْهُ ثُمَّ تَدْعُونَهُ فَلَا يُسْتَجَابُ لَكُمْ«
"By the One in Whose Hand lies my soul, you must order the ma'roof and forbid the munkar, or Allah will be about to send a punishment, then you will supplicate to Him and you will not be answered." [Tirmidhi]
»لتأخذنّ على يد الظالم ولتأطرنّه على الحق أطرا ولتقصرنّه على الحق قصرا أو ليضربنّ الله بقلوب بعضكم على بعض ثم ليلعنكم كما لعنهم«
"Seize the hands of the oppressor and hold and restrict him to the Truth exclusively on the right, or Allah will strike your hearts against each other and you will be cursed as they (Bani Israel) were cursed."
O you who tread the path of the princes of the martyrs!
Whilst upon this path of accounting the ruler, the Muslim does not fear any loss at the hand of the evil ones, who harass, imprison and torture, sometimes leading to death, as has been seen throughout the Muslim World. The Muslim does not fear losing the company of the loved ones, or losing the ability to provide Nafaqah for them, or even the loss of life itself, which is the origin of companionship and striving for maintenance for our most beloved. For the one who seeks to be the prince of martyrs is the one who considers the words of Allah سبحانه وتعالى when He سبحانه وتعالى says,
فَلاَ تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِي
"so fear them not, but fear Me!"
(al-Baqarah: 150)
And he considers the words of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم when he صلى الله عليه وسلم said before a belligerent Quraysh
» فوالله لا أزال أجاهد عن الذي بعثني الله به حتى يظهره الله أو تنفرد هذه السالفة«
"By Allah, I will continue to strive for the mission for which Allah sent me, until either this (deen) is victorious, or they sever my neck"
He considers that the best of all provisions is that granted in Jannah and the best of its companionship is that found in its highest levels. He considers that those who love each other will be raised in status in the Akhira through this love. So these considerations propel him to strive more and more, sacrifice more and more, yearning for the highest Jannah, the best of provisions and best of companionships for eternity, so that those whom he loves are raised with him, inshaaAllah.
So, why should the Muslim fear the loss of provision or the loss of the companionship, in this fleeting life? It is this resolve that inspires the loved ones and strengthens them when they falter. It is what is seen in the eyes and felt in the passion of movement towards the obliteration of Kufr and falsehood. It is this resolve which inspires the loved ones to urge the Carrier of Dawah, "If you falter or are weak before the evil ones, you will not be welcomed on your return. Stand firm until you embrace the martyrdom and we will rejoice with you in the Aakhira"
O you who seek to run along the path of the princes of the martyrs!
Let us plant firm footsteps on this path. Let us not falter even for a single footstep, either through fear of the oppressor or through love of our most cherished. Let us be assured of the reward that we will carry for ourselves and for those whom we love. Let us be assured that the tyrants are falling and weakening before the relentless march of this Ummah. And may we rejoice soon inshaaAllah at the end of the Kufr rule and rise of the rule of Islam. May we live as princes and die as martyrs. Ameen
وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ فَرِحِينَ بِمَا آَتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ وَيَسْتَبْشِرُونَ بِالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ مِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ أَلَّا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
"Never take those killed in the way of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, well-provided, happy with what Allah has given them of His grace; and they feel pleased with the good news, about those left behind them who could not join them, that there shall be no fear for them nor shall they grieve."
(Aal-Imran: 169-170)
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Musab ibn Umayr

Open Letter to General Raheel Sharif from Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan

الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه وبعد
"All Praise be to Allah and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and his family and companions and those who follow him."
We begin our address to you, General Raheel, with that which is Khair, as a reminder both for us and for you. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,
قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتَنْزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ إِنَّكَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
"Say: "O Allah! Possessor of the power, You give power to whom You will, and You take power from whom You will, and You endue with honor whom You will, and You humiliate whom You will. In Your Hand is the good. Verily, You are able to do all things."
(Surah Aali Imran 3:26)
Thus, it was the will of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, Al-Qadeer, that you should become commander of the Muslim World's largest army, the Pakistan Army. We remind you that commanding the Muslim army is an Amaanah, a trust, providing a great opportunity to be elevated before Allah سبحانه وتعالى, His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the believers. Indeed, RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم himself first held the honoured post of commander of the Muslim army, setting a glorious example for all the ages and all the peoples. And in our Islamic history, the army commander who emulated him صلى الله عليه وسلم was honoured and a means for blessings for the Ummah, whether he was Khalid (ra), Salahudin or Muhammad bin Qaasim. So, woe to the one who squanders such an Amaanah, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى forbid!
O General Raheel: You assumed command of one of the world's most powerful fighting forces at a critical time for Pakistan. As you know too well, for several long years the Pakistan Army has been ensnared in a war within the tribal areas, which is accompanied by a barbaric campaign of bombings and assassinations that have spread terror throughout our lands. Hizb ut-Tahrir directs your attention to the fact that this calamity is the direct outcome of American foreign policy, specifically the policies of low intensity conflict and covert, "black" operations. It is this low intensity conflict which destroys internal stability, strains our capability, strangulates our potential and justifies repeated American interference to ask us to "do more." And it is the covert operations, such as "false flag" attacks in the name of the enemy, which are an American ploy, practiced by its intelligence agencies all over the world from Latin America to South East Asia, to make sure that conflict continues by burning the country in the fires of insecurity.
Thus, without doubt, General Raheel, our real internal threat is from the substantial American presence within Pakistan. It is this American presence which is the source of the intricate planning, huge funding and sophisticated arms supply that has allowed the targeting of military and civilian targets for so long. As long as these foreign assets exist on our soil, we will never see an end to this devastating war, even if we were to lose far more than we have already lost.
Moreover, it is only upon the return of our Khilafah that our armed forces will be mobilized without delay to seize or seal these foreign assets, securing us from mischief, whether it is from the political and military points of contact, or the intelligence assets such as the CIA or private military organizations staffed by armies of Raymond Davis's, or even the embassy and consulates. This is because, unlike democracy, Islam's unique ruling system, the Khilafah, binds the ruler to implement the Quran and the Sunnah, which categorically forbids alliance with the enemy forces who fight Muslims, occupy our lands and desire only our ruin. For Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا لاَ تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ بِالْمَوَدَّةِ وَقَدْ كَفَرُوا بِمَا جَاءَكُمْ مِنَ الْحَقِّ
"O you who believe do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies, meeting them with softness. Indeed, they disbelieve in that which has come to you of truth."
(Surah Mutahina 60:9)
And Hizb ut-Tahrir assures you, General Raheel, that this matter can be settled in but a few hours, were you to take the required steps to liberate our armed forces from the snare in which they were ensnared in for America's benefit.
O General Raheel: It is only through providing the Nussrah to Hizb ut-Tahrir for the establishment of the Khilafah that our lands of Pakistan, the Pure, the Good, will be given the security they deserve. Moreover, you are capable of securing the return of the Khilafah within hours, by granting the Nussrah (Material Support). Thus, we urge you to consider your predecessors in this matter, the noble fighting men of the Ansaar (ra). They (ra) responded to RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم, when he called the fighting forces of the tribes to grant the Nussrah for establishing Islam as a state, through the Pledge of Men, of War, the Second Pledge of Aqabah. We love for you, General Raheel, to fully appreciate after deep reflection, that the Ansaar (ra) responded with vigor for they knew that granting Nussrah for the Deen of our Creator سبحانه وتعالى is of great reward, as is the fighting in His cause. Indeed, upon the death of the commander of the Ansaar (ra), Saad bin Muath (ra), his grieving mother was consoled by RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم with the following glad tidings:
"ليرقأ (لينقطع) دمعك، ويذهب حزنك، فإن ابنك أول من ضحك الله له واهتز له العرش"
"Your tears would recede and your sorrow be lessened if you know that your son is the first person for whom Allah سبحانه وتعالى smiled and His Throne trembled." [Reported in at-Tabarani]
So we ask you what greater prize could any Muslim military commander wish for? And we address here the one whose household has been honored by not one, but two, martyrs, Major Aziz Bhatti and Major Shabbir Sharif, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى have accepted from them both.
Hizb ut-Tahrir assures you that there are many under your command that already covet this greatest of all prizes. They are brave, sincere and would stand with you, behind you and before you, as you take the required steps by giving Nussrah to Hizb ut-Tahrir under its Ameer, the eminent jurist and statesman, Sheikh Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah for the establishment of the Khilafah Rashedah; the glory of this life and the Hereafter, and Allah take care of the righteous.
O General Raheel! O you of a household adorned by martyrdom! Here ends our sincere advice to you for the sake of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. It is upon you to put a halt to the gloating of the Kuffar, their agents and all the enemies of Islam at the destruction of Pakistan. We have undertaken our duty towards you, to place before you a reminder of your duty before Allah سبحانه وتعالى. So let the believer take heed for his own benefit! Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَى تَنْفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
"For indeed, the reminder benefits the believers."
(51:55)
Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan
11 Safar 1435 AH
 14 December 2013 CE

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 2

Photo: Explanation of At-Takattul (Party structuring) series:

Part One:

Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizb Sheikh Al-Hawarey

When the calamities descend upon the Ummah that are followed up by occurrences in which Zhulm (oppression) dominates and the affairs of the people are handed to those who are not qualified to undertaken them, the people begin to grumble and complain. This discontent transfers to becoming a general sensation and feeling of being oppressed. This sensation becomes embodied within some of the people which then drives them into activity and to move to repel the oppression, get rid of Fasaad (corruption), raise the status of their society and Ummah and to revive with her to reach the level that they wish for her to attain. It is only natural that these people will then resort to structuring (forming a group) so as to establish the capable strength required to bring change according to their estimation and for them to join upon a goal or an idea that they would gather round comprising of their goals and the path that they will proceed in accordance to. 

Due to what our Islamic world suffers from in terms of decline and backwardness and what it endures in terms of oppression and abuse we see that many movements have come one after another that aim at stopping its decline, elevating its status and to revive with it to the highest elevation that befits it. However all of these movements for more than 100 years have failed to achieve what they strove for and the evidence for their failure is the reality of the Islamic world today. It has continued in its decline until it has reached the very bottom or near to that and we have not gained anything from these movements except for this unbridled and ardent desire to work for change. So we are able to say that the good that these movements left for us is the general feeling of the desire to make change and even if they have taken the Ummah to the brink of despair. However the one who examines the Ummah finds that it still has within it the noble qualities that allow it to accept a way out from what it suffers from, as long as it senses that there does exist a way to free themselves or that there is a reliable trustworthy leadership that it can follow or be led by.

The one who examines these Harakaat (movements) and has followed these attempts will find that they were not individualistic actions but were rather structures (Takattulat) or organisations that were structured upon a specific thought for the purpose of achieving a specific goal or objective. Despite this they failed.

The reasons for the failure of the movements and the previous attempts:

To become aware of the reasons or causes for failure it is necessary to study these movements from two angles:

1) The first angle is that of the Fikrah (thought) and objective that for its sake the gathering took place. Was this Fikrah (thought/idea) correct or incorrect?
2) As for the second angle then it is the angle of structuring. We do not mean here by the structural angle that which occurs inside the structure in terms of structuring (administration) but rather we mean the bases that any structure is established upon regardless of the thought that it has adopted or the path that is proceeds in accordance to.

So the structure any structure is established upon four bases which are:

1) The idea that comprises the aim and which the people are gathered upon.
2) The method that this structure proceeds along in the way to achieving its aim.
3) The people who are responsible for this structure in terms of the extent of their Imaan in its Fikrah (thought/idea) and Tareeqah (method).
4) How the affiliation of the people into the Takattul (structure) is completed.

Any flaw in any basis from amongst these bases will inevitably to the failure in arriving to the achievement of the aim which the Takattul (structure) is working to achieve. And by scrutinising all of these movements that have arisen within the last century we find that all of them have failed from the structural perspective due negligence in regards to these bases.

This where:
• They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
• They did not know a Tareeqah (method) to implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea proceeded by improvised and twisted means. This is in addition to it being surrounded by obscurity and ambiguity.
• They relied upon people in whom the correct awareness had not been completed and the correct will was not focused within them. They were rather people possessing desire and zeal alone.
• Those people who undertook the burdens of the movements did not possess the correct bond between them. It was no more than a structure that was represented in forms of actions and a number of titles.

We will now examine in the following section each of these bases in some detail:

1) They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).

Yes it is necessary that every Takattul be based upon a Fikrah (idea/thought) and it can either be a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) or a Fikrah Kulliyah (comprehensive idea/thought). The general idea is the type that can be used as a basis for thought in many matters that come together in a single basis. As for the comprehensive idea, it can be used as a basis for everything. This is in relation to distinguishing between the general and comprehensive thoughts. Therefore the thoughts of nationalism, regionalism and patriotism are only general thoughts that do not encompass all aspects or areas of life. However the Fikrah Mabda’iyah (ideological thought) is a comprehensive idea that covers all aspects of life.

I will add to this by stating that it is not defined. So the structures that were formed include those that have been established upon the basis of Islaam (The glory of the Muslims), some have been established on the basis of nationalism (Might of the Arabs and Arab dignity) and some on a patriotic regional basis (Syrian etc...) amongst other ideas. These are all general ideas but they are undefined.

Therefore ‘The glory of the Muslims’, ‘Islamic might’, ‘Return to Allah’, ‘Islamic education’, Islamic brotherhood’, ‘Islamic revival’, ‘Arab revival’, ‘Independence’, ‘Arab unity’ and ‘The eternal message’ amongst other ideas and slogans, do not have a defined (or specified) meaning.

So in relation to the following statements for example:

‘Returning the glory of the Muslims’    = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘The honour/might (‘Izzah) of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Returning to Allah’    = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Tarbiyah (education/raising)’  =  Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic brotherhood’    = Shibhu Ghaamidah, Ghaamidah.
‘Islamic revival’     = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab revival’     = Ghaamidah (vague). 
‘Independence’     = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab Unity’     = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Unity’     = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).

Therefore Ghumood (vagueness/obscurity) is not having knowledge of the aim/objective or the way to attain it. As for Shibhu Ghaamid (semi-vague) then its meaning is well-known but its features have not been made clear like the statements ‘Returning to Allah’ and ‘Islamic Tarbiyyah’.

As for the loss of the Tabalwur (crystallization) then the meaning of crystallization is transforming from a liquid state to a solid one like the crystallizing of salt from water. What is intended here in regards to lack of crystallization is an expression of the feelings and emotions of those affected by this and that the ideas were not embodied in them and indeed they were incapable of identifying and specifying  its features if they had desired to explain the idea to the people. Therefore they relied upon slogans and stirring the emotions alone and this can be seen to be the reality of most of the movements that are currently present.

As for the loss of the Naqaa’ (purity), then in regards to the Islamic movements, they did not comprehend or perceive clearly what had been entered into Islaam in terms of western ideas. An example of this are the principles that were brought in related to the formation of the Shar’iah rulings that were taken from the Roman and French jurisprudence (Fiqh). There are a great number of western principles that are studied upon the basis that they are Islamic principles and bases. This is like the principle: ‘The custom rules (i.e. dominates)’ or ‘The origin in contracts are the intentions and meanings’ and ‘That which does not contradict Islaam is from Islam’ amongst others.
So An-Naqaa’ (purity) means distancing the foreign bodies from the fundamental thought so that it remains sound in its origins and branches. As for non-Islamic movements like nationalistic and patriotic movements, they have not truly comprehended the danger and seriousness of what they have carried of western thoughts. Indeed they have believed in (some of) these thoughts and have dedicated themselves to them like the ideas of Democracy and Freedom amongst others for example. This is in addition to attempting to explain and interpret Islaam in accordance to what suits and fits with these thoughts and then they claim that they are Islamic.

As for the Safaa’ (clarity) then this means the clarity of vision. And what is intended here in terms of clarity of vision means comprehending the linkage between the thought and the origin that it has emanated from or built upon. So in respect to Muslims and the carriers of the Da’wah the Safaa’ (clarity) of the thought means that every Hukm Shar’iy (ruling) that they call for is tied to the evidence that it has emanated from and that every thought that is called for is built upon the fundamental thought which is the Aqueedah (belief) of the Ummah. This was not fulfilled within these movements and they were unable to distinguish between Shuraa and democracy as a result. Indeed they were unable to differentiate between Shuraa being a Hukm Shar’iy that the human resorts to in order to arrive at a correct view irrespective of this human being a ruler or not a ruler. This is because Shuraa is a Mandoob (recommended) Hukm Shar’iy and it is a style to arrive at what is most probable to be correct whether this is a matter of ruling or other than a matter of ruling. Despite this it is still possible to hear those who are callers to Islaam stating that the system of ruling in Islaam is the system of Shuraa and following from this it is true democracy.

As for non-Muslims from amongst those whom do not have a defined idea then the work with them is greater and harder because they have taken the western ideas just as they are without regard for whether these ideas are suitable for their nation and society or not suitable and they remain upon this state whether it relates to their fundamental thoughts or their styles.
Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 

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

To access Part 1 click here

2) They did not know a Tareeqah (method) to implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea proceeded by improvised and twisted means. This is in addition to it being surrounded by obscurity (Ghumood) and ambiguity (Ibhaam).


The subject of the Tareeqah (method) remains unclear in terms of understanding in respect to all of the movements until this day. Indeed they are virtually incapable of differentiating or distinguishing between the Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method) and between the Usloob (style) and the Waseelah (means). They envision any action from amongst actions to be the method and more precisely they do not distinguish between the Tareeqah (method) before achieving the goal and the Tareeqah after arriving to it and the manner of implementing the Fikrah (thought).

We have oft repeated that the ideology (Al-Mabda’) is the thought and the method (Fikrah wa Tareeqah). The Fikrah is the Aqueedah, its solutions (Mu’aalajaat) and carrying the Da’wah whilst the Tareeqah relates to protecting/preserving the Aqueedah and how to implement the solutions and how to carry the Da’wah. This relates to the ideology and it consisting of the thought and the method however our study and discussion here is related to the manner of how to make this ideology reach life and thereafter establishing its implementation.

Our because our discussion here revolves around the structures and their failure from the structural aspect and it does not revolve around their failure in regards to implementing their Fikrah (idea/thought) then the subject of Tareeqah here relates to the way that the Takattul should proceed in accordance to. This requires examining the Makki stage of the life of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in relation to the Islamic structures (groups) and the Ahkaam (legal rulings) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) established in addition to gaining awareness about the difference between that which is a Hukm (ruling) and that which is a Waseelah (means) or Usloob (style) to implement another ruling.

So openness in the conveyance is a Hukm Shari’iy (Legislative ruling) whilst the Messenger (saw) standing upon As-Safaa and calling the people until they had gathered is an Usloob (style) and the use of his voice in the call was a Waseelah (means). So the conveyance of the Shar’iy rule or warning about the colonialist plans represents a Shari’iy rule, the means is a publication and the style is wide challenging distribution.

So the Hukm Shari’iy is: The required action that is performed as it is (on its own merit (as an obligation)).

The Waseelah (means) is: It is the tool that is used (utilized) like a publication (leaflet), radio or microphone. This would be determined or defined by the age and circumstance.

The Usloob (style): It is the manner that is employed (utilised) to deliver the means and this is determined or defined by the nature of the work/action.

Therefore the subject or issue that has been mentioned in this paragraph does not relate to the Tareeqah in terms of the Fikrah and Tareeqah of the ideology (Mabda’). But rather it refers to the Tareeqah (methodology) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) followed to bring the ideology to the life.
This can be summarised as follows:
- A Takattul that is established upo an ideology with its Fikt=rah and Tareeqah (thought and method).
- It has an Ameer.
- This Takattul works to:

1) Produce people who believe in it.
2) Produce an Ummah or people that accept it.
3) Produce or find a power (force) that is capable of placing this ideology in the position where it can be implemented in life.

In addition there are a collection of rules that are related to the achievement of this objective:

1) Like committing to the intellectual Da’wah alone and distancing from using the material means
2) Obeying and implementing what this Takattul has obliged and what it has adopted in terms of thoughts.
3) Implement the decisions that it has taken.

Based upon this, these Takattulaat (structures) including those which are Islamic and those which are not, did not possess a vision (grasp) for the method that they should proceed in accordance with. What they performed of actions were reactions to what was occurring in the society (improvised actions without preceding understanding or planning in addition to imitating that which happens in the world like strikes, protests and the raising of slogans).

As for them being twisted (flexible) then this happens as a result of entering into bargaining and compromising with the rulers and people in positions of responsibility, or by joining with other Takattulaat (structures) or being drawn into joining the work of a front, organisation, association or something similar. If however these structures viewed that they did in fact have a specific method then this method was vague (Ghaamid) and not clear. So when they call for ‘Islamic Unity’ or ‘Arab Unity’ their method to achieve this is vague and they are incapable of how to reach this objective even if they are attempting to find it. As for the obscurity (Ibhaam) then this is reflected in the complete ignorance of this manner.

3) Those responsible for these structures were people driven by zeal (enthusiasm) and a desire for change as a result of the circumstances that the land is passing through or due to the realisation of the corrupt nature of affairs. So they go out with their zeal for change without the will and awareness being focused in them.

This is because the awareness (Al-Wa’ie) of the thought and method is the Jaw Al-Imaani (atmosphere of Imaan) that makes the person possessing it in a continuous state of zeal (Hamaas) when he binds his actions with the fundamental principle that they have emanated from. The lack of awareness makes him exposed to hesitation, inaction and bargaining (compromise). As for the will (Iraadah) then this comes from the strength of the belief (Imaan) in relation to the obligation of achieving that objective. It is distinguished from the desire (Raghbah) because it is a desire that is linked to a command that is obligatory to be implemented. As for the desire that is not connected to another factor then the most that this can reach to is zeal/enthusiasm. If that zeal then diminishes then the motivation wanes along with it and he sits back from the work as a result. If we were to closely examine that which these movements have left behind we will not find in them a trace of awareness or knowledge of what they wanted.

4) The bond that joined together the individuals of these movements was not a correct bond. It was usually restricted to a mere desire attached to forming a group.

The structured groups normally searched for people that have a position of standing within the society like Doctors, Engineers, those in positions amongst others who hold a social status. Likewise the member looks for a structure to affiliate to in order to strengthen his social standing. Due to the above we find many continuously moving from one Hizb to another either to perform some actions or to be included under a number of titles.

It could be stated here that the Aqueedah is the best bond that brings the people together. These words are correct but upon the condition that the Aqueedah is the basis of the Takattul (structure). This because all of the sons (members) of these structures are Muslims and they are brought together by the Islamic Aqueedah however they have not taken the Aqueedah as the basis of their structuring (group formation). This is from one angle and from another angle the Islamic Aqueedah is the basis upon the structuring was completed within the Islamic groups and movements. However they took it as a general idea and this is not sufficient to be a bond (that binds). This in the case where this Aqueedah holds the potential for a number of Islamic rulings to be derived that lead to a plurality of understandings and differences in relation to solutions and steps of action. This is because it is only natural that many different structures would emerge from this Aqueedah. For this reason it is necessary for a single Islamic group to have a specific culture for it meaning that it is necessary to adopt rulings for its objectives and a path that it proceeds along. All will be joined and brought together upon these rulings (Ahkaam) and it will be the bond of their joining together to achieve their objectives and unify the path that they proceed along. So it is not sufficient to state that the Aqueedah should be the bond that binds but rather it is the Aqueedah and the Hizbiy culture that is the bond that binds the members together so that the objective is unified, the work is unified and the path that is proceeded along is unified for everyone.


To access Part 3 click here