Monday, August 25, 2014

Article 28 & 29, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah

The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستورأو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points

Click here to access the previous article

Article 28
No one can be Khalifa unless the Muslims appoint him, and no one possesses the mandatory powers of the leadership of the State unless the contract with him has been concluded according tothe  Shari’ah, like any contract  in Islam.

The evidence is that the Khilafah is a contract upon satisfaction and consent, since its reality as a contract means it is not contracted except through two contracting parties, and therefore no one is the Khalifah unless he was appointed to it by those whose agreement completes the conclusion of the contract according to the Shari’ah. So if someone appoints himself Khalifah without the pledge from those whom the Khilafah is contracted through, then he would not be a Khalifah until his pledge occurs with choice and consent from those whom the conclusion of the contract takes place. So the fact that the Khilafah is a contract necessitates the presence of two contracting parties, with each of them having the necessary Shari’ah qualifications to be entrusted with the contract and conclude it.
If a conqueror came about and took the ruling by force he does not become a Khalifah by that, even if he announces himself as Khalifah of the Muslims, since the Khilafah was not contracted to him by the Muslims. If he took the pledge of allegiance from the people by force and compulsion, he does not become the Khalifah even if he was given the pledge, since the pledge given through compulsion and force is not considered and so the Khilafah cannot be contracted by it. This is because a contract of choice and consent cannot be completed through compulsion and force, and so it is not contracted except through a pledge given with satisfaction and consent. However, if this conqueror managed to convince the people that it was in the benefit of the Muslims to give him the pledge, and that the implementation of the Shari’ah would be complete through giving the pledge to him – and so the people became convinced and satisfied with that and gave him the pledge of allegiance on that basis with their own choice, then he would become the Khalifah from the moment that he was given that pledge by the people freely even though he took the authority through force and power. Therefore, the condition is the contracting of the pledge, and this is only reached through consent and choice, irrespective of whether the one who reached it was the ruler and leader, or wasn’t.

Article 29
It is stipulated that the authority of the region or the country that gives the Khalifah a contracting pledge is autonomous dependent upon the Muslims alone, and not upon any disbelieving state; besides the security of the Muslims in that country, both internally and externally, is by the security of Islam not the security of the disbelief. With respect to the pledge of obedience taken from other countries, there are not such conditions.

The evidence is the forbiddance of the disbelievers having authority over the Muslims, in accordance with the His (swt) words “Allah will never grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers” (TMQ 4:141), so if the authority of the disbelievers over the Muslims is present in any part of the Islamic lands, then that land would not be suitable to establish the Khalifah, since the establishment of a Khalifah is simply the establishment of an authority. Since that land does not possess the authority it therefore cannot give it. Also its authority is an authority of disbelief, and the Khalifah is not established with the authority of disbelief.

This is from the angle of the authority; as for the issue of security, its evidence is the evidence for Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Kufr, since the establishment of the Khalifah would make the abode into an abode of Islam, and it is not possible for an abode to be an abode of Islam simply by establishing the rule of Islam but rather it is imperative that its security is by the security of Islam and not that of disbelief, since the conditions for the abode to be considered an abode of Islam are: firstly, to be ruled by Islam and secondly, for its security to be the security of Islam and not the security of disbelief.

Click here to access the next article

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Q&A: Paying Zakat before it's due

Assalamu alaikum our sheikh, May Allah cherish you with Islam and cherish Islam with you. I pray to Allah that I will be among those who will give you the Bayah for the Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, for He is the One Able of everything.
I have a question about Zakat, Zakat on trade deals or money; is it acceptable to give Zakat on them or part of them before a full year (al-Hawl) passes on them, and is the completion of (al-Hawl) a condition to pay Zakat on them?
May Allah help you with what is good for Islam and Muslims in this world and the Hereafter, Wa Assalam Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.
From Imad M. Sa'ad

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
The completion of al-Hawl is a condition for the reason of paying Zakat, which is "the quorum" (Nisab). If the condition is met, that is al-Hawl has passed based on the reason of "quorum" without decreasing it, then Zakat becomes obligatory. However, if it is given out before it is due then this giving is permissible, according to the Shariah evidence, which include the following:
- Al-Bayhaqi extracted in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra from Ali:
«أَنَّ الْعَبَّاسَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ سَأَلَ رَسُولَ اللهِ فِي تَعْجِيلِ صَدَقَتِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَحِلَّ فَأَذِنَ لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ».
"That Al Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, asked the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم if he can hasten in paying his Sadaqa before its Hawl has completed, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم granted him permission".
- Al-Darqitni extracted in his Sunan from Hujr Al-Adawi from Ali that he said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to Omar:
«إِنَّا قَدْ أَخَذْنَا مِنَ الْعَبَّاسِ زَكَاةَ الْعَامِ عَامِ الْأَوَّلِ»
"We took the Zakat of the year from Al-Abbas in the first year".
- Also Al-Darqitni extracted from Musa bin Talha from Talha that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«يَا عُمَرُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَمَّ الرَّجُلِ صِنْوُ أَبِيهِ؟ إِنَّا كُنَّا احْتَجْنَا إِلَى مَالٍ فَتَعَجَّلْنَا مِنَ الْعَبَّاسِ صَدَقَةَ مَالِهِ لِسَنَتَيْنِ».
"O Omar did you not know that the Uncle of the Man is the twin of his father? We needed money so we took Sadaqa from the money of Abbas for two years earlier".
There was a disagreement in the Isnad of Al-Hakam and the correct is from Al-Hasan ibn Muslim which is Mursal (transmitted).
Accordingly, it is permissible to hasten the giving of Zakat before it becomes due.
For your information, most scholars say this as well.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
11th Shawwal 1435 AH
07/08/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Q&A: Treatment of Non-Muslims in matters of foodstuff and clothing according to their faiths

Answer to the Question: Treatment of Non-Muslims in Matters of Foodstuff and Clothing According to Their Faiths 
To: Adnan Khan

Salaams Sheikh
My question is on an article in the Constitution. In article 7, clause 4 or clause D from the English translation of the second edition 2010, it is stated: “The non-Muslims will be treated in matters related to foodstuffs and clothing according to their faith and within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”. My question is related to clothing.
Will non-Muslim women be allowed to wear any clothing as long as it covers the bodies and is modest, such as long dresses or trousers and a shirt? Or will they be required to wear Khimar and Jilbaab like the Muslim women?
How was the non-Muslim women’s dress dealt with throughout Islamic history? i.e. were they allowed to wear what they wanted or was the Islamic dress enforced upon them.
May Allah reward you
From your Brother Adnan from the UK

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Item "d" of the previous article, which you asked about, is as follows: “The non-Muslims will be treated in matters related to foodstuffs and clothing according to their faith and within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”. Since you asked about the clothing, the answer is:

The above item identified two restrictions for clothing:

The first restriction: "According to their faith”, so they are allowed to wear clothing according to their religion; and clothing according to their religions is the clothing of their religious men and women, i.e. the clothes of priests and monks, etc… and nuns’ clothes. This is the clothing determined by their faith, so their men and women are allowed to wear these clothes. This is for the first restriction.

The second restriction: “Within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”, these are the rules that govern the public life which includes all citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women.

•The exception is for the clothing according to their faiths.

•As for clothing that is not by their faiths, the Shari’ah rulings are applied upon them with regards to public life. This is for both 
men and women.

This dress code is specified in detail in the Social System, which applies to all individual citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims. There is no exception for non-Muslims except in clothing according to their faiths, as mentioned above. Other than that, women are obliged to cover their private parts (Awrah) and not to be in the state of revealing their beauty (Tabarruj), and must be wearing the Jilbab and Khimar. Since wearing trousers is considered Tabarruj, it is not permissible for a woman to wear it in public life, even if it is covering (Saatir).

As for historical facts; throughout the era of the Khilafah, women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim women, wore the Jilbab, a wide wrap over their (home) clothes, and covered their heads. There were some villages in which Muslim and non-Muslim women lived together and were not distinguished from each other in their clothing... 
Even after the abolishment of the Khilafah, the effects of that remained to some extent. 

Thus, if you ask the elderly, aged over seventy or eighty years old, they would tell you about their observations in some of the Palestinian villages, and how they used to see Christian and Muslim women dressed in similar clothing in those villages...
I hope this sufficiently answers your question. 

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

22nd Shawwal 1435 AH - 18/08/2014 CE

النسخة العربية 

The viewpoint of the Muslims in life is the Halaal and the Haraam [ Translated]

The following is an English translation of a useful article from the archives.

The viewpoint of the Muslims in life is the Halaal and the Haraam

1) The viewpoint in life or what has been called ‘ideology’ controls the behaviour of the human in a complete manner because it is formed from the ‘Aqeedah i.e. by way of decisive belief (Tasdeeq Jaazim) in specific thoughts about life. The human by his nature undertakes his actions according to what is in his interest i.e. to attain benefit for himself and to repel harm from himself. There is no difference in regards to this amongst humankind because their Fitrah is upon that. However their view toward the interests differs in accordance to the difference in their viewpoint in life and in accordance to its change the view of the human towards his interests changes. As for what forms the viewpoint towards his interests then it comes from his Hukm (judgement) upon the human actions and things or matters that are connected to them. So that which is judged to be Hasan (good) will be undertaken and will be considered as a beneficial matter whilst that which is judged to be Qabeeh (undesirable) will be refrained from and will be considered as harmful. As such the consideration of the interests only occurs by the judgement upon the actions and things.

So who does this judgement upon actions and things belong (or return) to? Does it belong to the ‘Aql (mind/intellect) or does it belong to the Shar’a? If it belongs to the mind then the consideration of the Masaalih (interests) must be left to the mind whilst if it belongs to the Shar’a then the consideration of the Masaalih must belong to the Shar’a. This is because the purpose of issuing a Hukm (judgement) is to designate and specify the stance of the human towards the action and whether he should perform it, leave it or have a choice between doing it and leaving it. It is also to specify his position towards the things that are connected and related to the actions in respect to whether he should take them or leave them or have the choice between taking and leaving them. The specification of his position rests upon his view toward the thing and whether it is Hasan or Qabeeh or neither Hasan or Qabeeh, and this rests upon who or what specifies this?

Is it the ‘Aql of the Insaan (human) or is the Shar’a? Or is it from the perspective of the reality of things and their suitability to the nature of the human and his Fitriy (intrinsic) inclinations or due to the innate nature being averse to them? There is therefore no doubt that the judgement upon things and actions in these two areas (reality and Fitriy inclinations) returns to the ‘Aql and not to the Shar’a. This is because it is the mind which judges upon the actions and things in these two areas whilst the Shar’a does not judge in either of these as there is no place for the Shar’a within them. So the possession of wealth is Hasan whilst poverty is Qabeeh and good health is Hasan whilst sickness is Qabeeh amongst similar matters are apparent in terms of their Husn and Qubh. And that giving property is Hasan whilst taking it is Qabeeh, or a thing being sweet is Hasan whilst a bitter thing is Qabeeh, amongst other similar matters. So the nature is averse to the taking of wealth by way of transgression and without right just as it is averse to that which is bitter, whilst it inclines towards helping and rescuing the one in danger and towards that which is sweet. This all returns back to the reality of the thing which the human senses and his mind comprehends and it returns to the nature of the human and his Fitrah. He feels it and his mind comprehends it and as such it was the mind that made judgement upon the matter in terms of it being Husn or Qubh (Good or undesirable/ugly) and it was not the Shar’a. 

However in respect to these matters the Hukm upon them is not considered a Maslahah or an absence of a Maslahah because it only provides information about a certain reality. So it provides information about the true reality (Haqeeqah) of the thing and what it is or it provides information about the true reality (Haqeeqah) of his natural/intrinsic (Fitriy) inclinations (Mayool) and what they are? The people do not differ in respect to judging these matters and as such there is no room in this matter for differences in viewpoints of life. The point where difference does occur is in respect to the Hukm upon matters from the angle of praise (Madh) or dispraise (Dhamm), and upon things and actions in the Dunyaa. So there are people who dispraise actions whilst others praise them and there are people who praise things whilst others dispraise them. So in respect to these actions and things, who is it who judges upon them in terms of praise or dispraise? Is it the person or is it Allah? Said differently, is it the ‘Aql or the Shar’a? The answer to this is that the ‘Aql and the Idraak (realisation/comprehension) is the transferral of things to the ‘Aql (mind) by way of the sensation and by way of the previous information that explains this reality. Therefore the Ihsaas (sensation) is an essential (intrinsic) part of the components of the ‘Aql and if the human has not sensed a thing it is not possible for his ‘Aql to pass judgement upon it. This is because the ‘Aql is restricted in passing judgement upon actions and upon things due to their being open to being sensed whilst it is impossible upon him to issue a judgement upon things that are not sensed. So the killing of a Musta’min (one who has been given a security) being dispraised whilst killing an enemy combatant being praised, or Ribaa (interest) being dispraised whilst a loan given without Ribaa being praised, all falls within that which the human does not sense as there is nothing for him to sense. It is not possible for it to be reasoned and for the ‘Aql to issue a judgement upon it. As for the feelings of the person in respect to repulsion towards killing or inclining towards taking an increase on his capital (i.e. through interest) which he has given as a loan, then all of these feelings by themselves do not benefit  us in respect to issuing a judgement. Rather it must be known that the sensation and feelings in regards to these matters does not always come from the Fitrah (innate nature) of the person. Rather it comes from the information that he possesses about it and for this reason some of them feel aversion whilst others feel the inclination towards the matter. It is because of these two reasons that the feelings are not suitable for the mind to issue a Hukm upon a thing or action but rather the sensation is necessary. This is the case where the Hiss (sensation) is not present and indeed not possible because it is not from the matters that are sensed. As such it is not possible for the ‘Aql to issue a judgement upon the action or the thing in respect to it being Husn or Qubh in terms of placing praise (Madh) upon performing it and blame/dispraise (Dhamm) upon leaving it. This is whilst the consideration of the interests (Masaalih) in terms of them being interests or not, returns back to the judgment passed upon them in terms of praise and dispraise and it does not return back to their reality and the innate (Fitriy) human inclinations towards them. In the case where it is not possible for the ‘Aql to pass judgement upon it then no one can consider interests as interests whilst returning back to the mind due to the lack of its capability to pass judgement upon them. Rather he must go back to the Shar’a and it is not permissible to make the issuing of the Hukm in terms of praise and dispraise return to the human Fitriy inclinations. This is because these inclinations issue the judgement of praise in accordance to what agrees or is in harmony with them and likewise issues the judgement of dispraise upon that which opposes it. That which is in agreement with the inclinations could be from the dispraised matters like Zinaa or subjugating the people into servitude, or it could be in opposition to the inclinations whilst being from the praised matters like fighting the enemies and saying the word of truth in circumstances which result in severe harm. Therefore making the Mayool (inclinations) and Ahwaa’ (desires) the source for passing judgement means making it the measure and criteria for the Madh (praise) and Dhamm (dispraise) which is definitely an incorrect measure without doubt. The Hukm would then be made in accordance to the desire and lusts and it will not be in accordance to what it must be. For this reason it is not allowed for the Fitriy inclinations to issue a judgement in terms of Madh or Dhamm and as such it is not allowed to refer the consideration of Masaalih (interests) as being interests back to the Mayool Al-Fitriyyah (natural innate inclinations). Rather the Shar’a must be referred back to.

In the case where the ‘Aql cannot be referred back to whilst considering interests to be interests but rather must be referred back to the Shar’a, and where it is not permissible to refer back to the Mayool Al-Fitriyyah (innate inclinations) when considering interests to be interests but rather it is necessary to refer back to the Shar’a. In such a case it means that considering interests as being interests does not return back to the human being but rather it refers back to the Shar’a. Islaam came and made the consideration of interests as being interests return back to the Shar’a and not to the human being. It is upon this basis that the Halaal and the Haraam have come so that they specify the position of the Muslim towards the actions (Af’aal) and things/matters (Ashyaa’). The question of whether he should refrain from them or not refrain from them does not return to the human but rather it returns alone to the Shar’a. It is the Shar’a that decides the Halaal and decides the Haraam. The human’s Wijhat An-Nazhar (viewpoint) in life is therefore not Naf’iyah (benefit) but rather it is the Halaal and the Haraam alone i.e. what Allah has made Halaal and what Allah Ta’Aalaa has made Haraam, whilst there is no consideration other than that.

2) The Aayaat and the Ahaadeeth have come explaining that the Halaal is that which Allah has made Halaal and that the Haraam is that which Allah has made Haraam, and that the right does not belong to anyone from amongst the humans to declare the Halaal and the Haraam. Allah (swt) has made clear that it is He alone who decides the Halaal and the Haraam, when He said:

وَقَدْ فَصَّلَ لَكُمْ مَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ

He has explained to you in detail what is Haraam (forbidden) to you (Al-Maa’idah 119).

قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ

Say: "Come, I will recite what your Lord has made Haraam (prohibited) upon you (Al-An’aam 151).

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ

Say: "My Lord has only made Haraam the evil sinful acts” (Al-A’araaf 33).

قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ

Say: "Who has made Haraam the adornment of Allah which He has produced for His servants (Al-A’araaf 32).

إِنَّمَا النَّسِيءُ زِيَادَةٌ فِي الْكُفْرِ يُضَلُّ بِهِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُحِلُّونَهُ عَامًا وَيُحَرِّمُونَهُ عَامًا لِيُوَاطِئُوا عِدَّةَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ

Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it Halaal one year and Haraam another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah and [thus] make Halaal what Allah has made Haraam (At-Taubah 37).

قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِينَ قَتَلُوا أَوْلَادَهُمْ سَفَهًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَحَرَّمُوا مَا رَزَقَهُمُ اللَّهُ افْتِرَاءً عَلَى اللَّهِ

Indeed lost are they who have killed their children, from folly, without knowledge, and have made Haraam that which Allah has provided for them (Al-An’aam 140).

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَذَا حَلَالٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ

And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: "This is Halaal and this is Haraam," so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never succeed (An-Nahl 116)

قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ مِنْ رِزْقٍ فَجَعَلْتُمْ مِنْهُ حَرَامًا وَحَلَالًا قُلْ آَللَّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ

Say: "Have you seen what Allah has sent down to you of provision of which you have made [some] Halaal and [some] Haraam?" Say: "Has Allah permitted you [to do so], or do you invent [something] about Allah?" (Yunus 59)

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآَخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ

Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement and do not make Haraam what Allah and His Messenger have made Haraam (At-Taubah 29).

And the Ahaadeeth have also come making clear and explaining that what Allah (swt) has made Halaal is that which He has made Halaal in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

إِنَّ الحَلالَ بَيِّنٌ وَالحَرَامَ بَيِّن

Verily the Halaal is clear and the Haraam is clear (An-Nasaa’iy Saheeh and similar from Al-Bukhaari).

يوشِكُ الرَّجلُ متَّكئًا علَى أريكتِهِ يحدَّثُ بحديثٍ من حديثي فيقولُ بينَنا وبينَكُم كتابُ اللَّهِ عزَّ وجلَّ ما وجَدنا فيهِ من حلالٍ استحلَلناهُ وما وجدنا فيهِ من حرامٍ حرَّمناهُ ألَّا وإنَّ ما حرَّمَ رسولُ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ مثلُ ما حرَّمَ اللَّهُ

There will come a time, when a man sitting upon his couch is mentioned a Hadeeth and he replies: ‘Between us and you is the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, so what we find in it to be Halaal we take as lawful and what we find in it to be Haraam we take to be forbidden.’ Indeed, what the Messenger of Allah has made Haraam is like what Allah has made Haraam. [Ahmad].

From this Hadeeth it is understood that the Halaal and Haraam is restricted to that which has come from Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

الحلالُ بيِّنٌ والحرامُ بيِّنٌ، وبينَ ذلِكَ أمورٌ مشتبِهاتٌ

The Halaal is clear and the Haraam is clear and between them there are some unclear/obscure matters.

And in the version recorded by Al-Bukhaari there is the addition:

لا يَعْلَمُهَا كَثِيرٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ

Most of the people do not know them.

And in the version recorded by At-Tirmidhi it stated:

لا يَعْلَمُهَا كَثِيرٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ مِنَ الحَلالِ هِيَ أَمْ مِنَ الحَرَامِ

Most of the people do not know, is it from the Halaal or is it from the Haraam.

This therefore refers to the three matters: The Halaal is clear, the Haraam is clear and the hidden/obscure matter about which it is not known whether it is Halaal or Haraam. So the clear Halaal can be validly undertaken, whilst the clear Haraam is not permitted to be undertaken, whilst that which is not known in terms of it being Halaal or Haraam must be avoided until the Hukm of Allah for it is made apparent in respect to it being Halaal or Haraam. Therefore all of these texts together indicate and guide to the viewpoint of the Muslim towards actions and things/matters being the Halaal and the Haraam alone.

It is this viewpoint which defines and specifies his position towards the actions and towards the things/matters related to the actions. Based upon this it is not Halaal for the Muslim for his conduct towards things and actions to be built upon (the premise of) the Man’fa’ah (benefit). Indeed it is Haraam for him to do that because as long as he believes in the Islamic Aqeedah, this Aqeedah makes it obligatory upon him for his conduct (Sulook) to be built upon the Halaal and the Haraam. This is because he believes that the Qur’aan Al-Kareem is the Kalaam of Allah and that this Qur’aan has explicitly stated that it is prohibited to make Halaal that which Allah (swt) has made Haraam and to make Haraam that which Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has made Halaal. This means that it has stated in its text the prohibition (Tahreem) of making other than the Halaal and the Haraam the measure in respect to undertaking and action or refraining from it.

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَذَا حَلَالٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ

And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: "This is Halaal and this is Haraam," so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never succeed (An-Nahl 116)
قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ مِنْ رِزْقٍ فَجَعَلْتُمْ مِنْهُ حَرَامًا وَحَلَالًا قُلْ آَللَّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ

Say: "Have you seen what Allah has sent down to you of provision of which you have made [some] Halaal and [some] Haraam?" Say: "Has Allah permitted you [to do so], or do you invent [something] about Allah?" (Yunus 59)

The ‘I’tiqaad (belief) in the Islamic ‘Aqeedah means that the viewpoint of the Muslim in life is that which the Islamic Aqeedah has brought. This is what Allah and His Messenger have made Halaal and what Allah and His Messenger have made Haraam i.e. the Halaal and the Haraam. This is in the case where the Aqeedah has brought with it the Imaan in the Qur’aan and in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw). The Qur’aan has prohibited for there to be a measure for undertaking actions and for things other than that which Allah has made Halaal and what Allah has made Haraam i.e. other than the Halaal and the Haraam. As such it is prohibited (Haraam) for Naf’iyah (benefit) to be the viewpoint in life.

21st Jumaada Al-Uolaa 1390

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Where is our Salahuddin Al-Ayoubi to move the Muslim Armies- Message from Ibtihal Bsis

Recently a campaign called "Where is our Salahuddin Al-Ayoubi to move the Muslim Armies?" was launched with the following objectives:

1. To show the solution to Gaza can only be solved through the intervention of the Muslim armies
2. To break the allegiance between the Muslim armies and the Muslim rulers
3. To show that only under the leadership of Islam did the Muslim armies successfully protect and defend the land of Muslims, the Ummah and Islam.
4. To make clear how the call from the Ummah in the UK can have impact towards the work for the correct Islamic Solution,

Following is a powerful message from sister Ibtihal Bsis where she emphasises the need for the Muslim armies to move and liberate the Ummah in Gaza and how we in Britain can aid the call to move them.

Facebook Page

Part 2: Bilal Abdul Kareem – Foreign fighters, rebel disunity and ISIS

n part 2 of this exclusive interview with journalist Bilal Abdul Kareem who spent two years in war-torn Syria, Dilly Hussain finds out how ordinary Syrians responded to foreign fighters, the role of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in the rebel infighting, and the future of Syria and the Arab world.
DH: Why do you think so many foreign fighters have left for Syria to fight jihad in comparison to other conflicts that have or are currently taking place in the Muslim world?
BAK: Syria or “Sham” as it’s better known as has a special place in Islam. Additionally, it is a conflict that is easy to access through neighbouring countries.
DH: How do ordinary Syrians and rebels feel about foreign fighters joining the war against Assad? Are foreign fighters actually helping or just fuelling the flames of war?
BAK: Initially Syrians loved and welcomed foreign fighters. Many of the foreign fighters settled down and married Syrian women. This is how close the bonds was between the Syrians and the foreign fighters. They ate on one table and drank from the same cup. The regime was not in a position to resist. This union between foreign and domestic fighters was very potent and the results speak for itself. The encounters where much of the territory was taken from the regime demonstrated that foreigners were the fiercest amongst all the fighters. This takes nothing away from the Syrians mind you, but by all accounts the foreigners were the ones who were eager to liberate the country from Assad as much as the Syrians and were very willing to die while trying.  Jabhat al-Nusra housed many but not all foreigners. Jabhat al-Nusra was the “darling” of the Syrian revolution much more so than the FSA could have hoped to be.
ISIS fighters in Syria
ISIS fighters in Syria
Then ISIS happened. They split from Jabhat al-Nusra after a fall out between Abu Muhammad Al Jawlani and Abu Bakr Baghdadi. They would claim territory that they as a group didn’t liberate and claim it as their own. Of course the local Syrians remember that it was other groups that cleared the area of regime forces and grumbled about it.
Many ISIS members do not see the majority of Syrians as Muslims and therefore they began to treat them as second class citizens. I am not saying ISIS as an entire group is people of takfir but many of them are, not due to malicious behavior but due to a lack of Islamic knowledge. This caused major friction between ISIS and the Syrians in general including Syrian rebel groups. ISIS consisting of nearly all foreigners were perceived as occupiers rather than liberators in territories they controlled.
ISIS began a series of kidnappings and assassinations of other group’s commanders such as Dr Hussein Sulayman of Ahrar Al-Sham and returned his badly tortured body to them.  They also executed Jabhat al-Nusra’s commander, Al Hadhrami after kidnapping him. This began to turn public opinion against foreign fighters which was unfortunate. All foreign fighters had to pay the price because of ISIS’ actions. This hurt the revolution very badly and it has been backtracking ever since.
DH: Tell us about some of the rebel groups you came in contact with:
Free Syrian Army (FSA)
BAK: Many don’t realise that a large group of those who fight under the FSA banner want Islamic governance as well. Some do want democracy but many don’t. Many of them didn’t join Islamic groups for a range of reasons. However I do not agree with those who paint a complete picture of FSA as devoted supporters of democracy.
According to Bilal, many within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) also desire an Islamic government if Assad was to fall.
According to Bilal, many within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) also desire an Islamic government if Assad was to fall.
Islamic Front
BAK: This group did something that no other group was capable of doing at that time. They unified the largest rebel groups and made them into a federation and a powerful fighting force. This group is looking to establish an Islamic government too but is using more “user-friendly” tactics than ISIS as they seem to have a better understanding as to what works and what doesn’t. Abu Essa, Hassan Abboud, and others within the movement may have started a model of unification that might show significant results in the future.
Jabhat al-Nusra
BAK: Jabhat al-Nusra is predominantly Syrian with a minority of foreign fighters. They are an Al-Qaeda affiliate but they do not appear to have a global jihad outlook. They seem very focused on the Syrian conflict. Their leader, Abu Muhammad Al Jawlani has been very successful with keeping his fighters focused on Syria. Their fighters were feared throughout Syria, and then came the split and many fighters and weapons were lost to ISIS. They are currently planning to establish an Islamic Emirate in the Syrian territories, which is different to a caliphate. We will have to wait and see if that will be successful or not.
BAK: This was previously answered and re-answered in a later question.
Syrian National Council/Coalition (SNC)
BAK: It’s not even whether they are perceived to be Western agents or not but no one actually talks about them inside Syria. They are sometimes mentioned when there’s big conferences in Turkey or Geneva, however outside of that I rarely hear anyone talk about them. The SNC power base inside Syria is virtually non-existent. Others are trying to groom them into a role of leadership and power in the Syrian territories, however that experiment hasn’t born fruit as of yet.
DH: What role has Islamic political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir played in terms of political guidance and direction to the fighters?
BAK: They too are not very influential. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a presence in some areas of Syria but their influence is not significant.
DH: Besides Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, would you say ordinary Syrian Muslims want Khilafah governed by Shariah?
BAK: Ordinary Syrians are of two types: Type one sees that an Islamic system is one that will give them an alternative to the system of governance that oppressed them for decades and they support that. Type two actually doesn’t care one way or the other. They just want the conflict to end and to return home.
DH: From what you’ve seen and heard, have ordinary Syrian Sunnis welcomed Al Qaeda or do they tolerate them out of fear?
Jabhat al-Nusra consists mainly of Syrians.
Jabhat al-Nusra consists mainly of Syrians.
BAK: As I mentioned earlier, Syrians love Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic Front. While al-Nusra is Al Qaeda, Islamic Front isn’t but Syrians seem to love them both. They get along very well and fight alongside one another effectively. So the Syrian people don’t look at things in the same context as westerners do in the “Al Qaeda is always bad” paradigm. However, it is clear that Syrians have a hatred for ISIS. Even if ISIS came to govern an area, the people of that area do not feel safe. Safe from ordinary crime? Yes. Safe from the authorities (ISIS)? No. Thus they don’t feel that their lives have improved under ISIS’ governance.
DH: How close did the rebels come to toppling Assad?
BAK: It is difficult to tell as I could not see the entire playing field while inside the country.  However, in early 2013 I felt the fall of the regime was imminent. Then the ISIS split happened and that changed things dramatically.
DH: How much has the rebel infighting affected the Syrian revolution and the march to Damascus?
BAK: It was a disaster. ISIS concentrates its forces on fighting the other Mujahideen. There are virtually no fronts with regime forces that ISIS participates in. So the other Mujahideen forces are forced to fight both the regime and ISIS. This has spread thin the resources of the resistance. The Islamic Front, Jabhat al-Nusra and the FSA amongst others seem to be united against ISIS.
DH: Who’s to blame for the infighting? The split between al-Nusra and ISIS, Al Qaeda or solely ISIS?
BAK: It is difficult to see all rebel forces on one side of the divide in relative unison and ISIS alone on the other side and not feel something is wrong. The coalition of Mujahideen forces has one major problem with ISIS (among other issues) and that is their refusal to have an independent Islamic judiciary to settle their disputes. ISIS believes that they are a state and thus have no reason to go anywhere to settle their issues outside of their group. The other Islamic fighters feel that the foundation they are fighting for is to make Islam the judge in all affairs and the best way to do that is for an independent council of scholars to settle the disputes. They feel they have been left with no alternative but to fight ISIS. There lies the stalemate. I think many of the fighters feel that Al Qaeda’s main leadership needed to do more to rein in their rogue commander in Abu Bakr Baghdadi as well.
DH: What implications does ISIS’ declaration of Khilafah have on the Syrian revolution and the Muslim world in general?
BAK: Its declaration has had some impact on the ground in Syria as its galvanized their fighters who are taking on the coalition of Mujahideen. Other groups who are resisting them seem to be adapting and continuing their resistance. Hassan Abboud, one of the leaders of the Islamic Front said that they are “continuing their struggle to save the Syrian people from all forms of oppression whether it is from the regime or from Baghdadi’s group”.
Jabhat al-Nusra came out with a statement few days a go stating that: “We are determined to unify ranks to face the dangers which threaten the jihadi front (in Sham), whether these threats are from the Nusayri regime or from the group of Khawarij and extremists.”  Of courses this is a thinly veiled condemnation of ISIS. I think the other groups see the potential threat that ISIS poses to them and they are trying to increase cooperation in ways they never did in the past.
DH: Do you believe it’s a Khilafah?
BAK: My personal view is that this declaration of “Khilafah” is an insult to the Muslims of Syria, Iraq, and around the world. The global Ummah is not a puny or ignorant people. It is full of intellectuals, doctors, historians, scholars, you name it and those people are willing to help build a unified Khilafah.
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi
How Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and those with him thought he would go from complete obscurity to leading this calibre of people without so much as even telling them who he was in advance and what his program was is beyond me. If he thought people would accept him as an unknown figure then that would mean by default that they would accept anyone who made that claim. He is unknown even to members of his own group. No one even knew what he looked like up until two weeks ago.
I think if he truly respected the people he wants to govern, he would have had more respect for their intellect. The Khalifah’s job is to look after the interests and affairs of the Ummah, which can be done in an infinitely better capacity if those being governed willingly accept you and thus they would lend to you their undying support even through difficult times. Is Baghdadi that naive to think that everyone was going to simply rally to his side? This is my opinion.
DH: Have you ever visited or stayed in ar-Raqqa or any areas under ISIS control?
BAK: I’ve been in many areas under their control but never Raqqa. ISIS areas are territories where the people are not in harmony with them. They may or may not be able to do anything about them, depending on the area, but I do not know of areas outside their control wherein the people are asking for their presence.
ISIS is not friendly to those who have dissenting ideas. I am constantly threatened by them simply because I don’t subscribe to their claim to the caliphate and thus many of them don’t recognise me as a Muslim anymore and have called for my execution. This is how Syrians are treated by them as well. How can this style of governance prevail and bring benefit to an already oppressed-weary people?
DH: Could Assad have resisted the rebel onslaught without the assistance of Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Shia fighters from Iraq?
BAK: No I don’t believe he could have. An interesting note is how the news media appears to be up in arms about the presence of “foreign jihadists” in Syria. Yet that concern is 95% directed to foreign fighters of the resbels. Very few media reports allude to the dangers of the presence of foreign fighters from the regime’s side.  Am I saying that this is all the part of one big conspiracy?  No, I’m not.  However, I am merely stating the obvious. Other people who are smarter than me will have to figure out why that is.
DH: What’s your view on the sectarian discourse that has emerged from the Syrian war, which has spilled over to neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq?
BAK: That is the real issue. A sectarian war between Sunni and Shia is a Pandora’s box. Those who stoked those tensions don’t realise what they are playing with and the carnage it will lead to. I hope things don’t reach the point of no return if it hasn’t reached that point already.
Syrian president Bashar al Assad
Syrian president Bashar al Assad
DH: From your analysis, who is currently winning the war in Syria, the rebels or Assad?
BAK: No one. The rebels have lost considerable ground since the emergence of ISIS both militarily and politically. So I cannot say that they are winning the war. They have been holding up under turmoil but we cannot say they are winning.
Assad isn’t winning because the country is now teeming with weapons and hatred for him and his regime. The Syrian people are no longer governable were he to stay in power. There would be a high intensity insurgency for many years to come as the rebels have the support of the people.
DH: Is a rebel victory still possible? Or is the only way forward a ceasefire and a political solution?
BAK: What I am going to say is not going to be popular but I think it is real. Many people think that there is no military solution to this conflict. I disagree. I believe that no matter what solutions are put forward as long as the regime stays in power there will be no peace. In addition, the regime will not step down nor will its Russian and Iranian backers allow it to step down even if it wanted to. Therefore the only solution that I see at this time is for the rebels to put aside any issues that they have, as they seem to be doing, and to complete the victory they started. I don’t see any level of peace for the Syrian people other than this. I wish I didn’t feel this way but I do.
DH: Where do you see the future of the Middle East and the Muslim world in light of the Arab Spring, the Syrian war, Iraq descending into sectarian conflict, turmoil in Egypt, and the announcement of a Caliphate by ISIS? Who are the real winners and losers?
BAK: The Middle East is going through a transitional phase right now and that is an understatement. It requires mature leadership from religious figures to stem the tide of endless war on the horizon. I say religious figures because people must understand that the Middle East is home to many religious people. Politicians are trying to sideline religion and push for secular solutions. This has proven to be an abysmal failure. So it really is up to the people of religion to step up now, show mature leadership and reach out across divides like they’ve never done before.
DH: Will you be returning to Syria?
BAK: Yes I will. I’m currently working on a daily news brief to keep people updated on the situation on the ground in Syria. Mainstream news has not been balanced enough to allow people around the world to make well informed decisions. We would like to change that and hope 5Pillarz can be a part of the project insh’Allah.
You can follow Bilal Abdul Kareem on Twitter @BilalKareem and Dilly Hussain @DillyHussain88



EXCLUSIVE: Bilal Abdul Kareem – Life with the Syrian rebels

Film-maker Bilal Abdul Kareem lived with the Syrian rebels for two years, documenting their political and military developments as they fought to topple Bashar al Assad. In this exclusive two-part interview with Dilly Hussain, the American journalist explains what led him to Syria and his observations on the Islamic sentiment of the revolution.
DH: Bilal tell us a bit about yourself. Where were you born? Do you have siblings? Are you married? Do you have any children? Where are you currently living?
BAK: I was born and raised in New York. I have one brother and a sister. I’m currently living in Doha, Qatar. I have six “babies” who aren’t really babies anymore as they all want iPads and mobile phones now instead of dolls and play dough. Where did the time go!
DH: How far did you get with academia? Did you go to university?
BAK: I went to the State University of New York where I studied creative writing. I also studied studio composition as I was heavy into music at that time.
DH: What were you doing before you became a journalist and film-maker?
BAK: I was the Programming Director for Huda TV based in Cairo. Additionally I did some other work such as translation of religious materials from Arabic to English, and I did lots of sound recording of books. But if you mean what was I doing years ago before I became Muslim, then the answer would be very different. I used to do stand up comedy and some other stuff years ago.
DH: What are your thoughts on the Arab Spring? Has it achieved anything?
The Arab Spring began in Tunisia and spread to Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria.
The Arab Spring began in Tunisia and spread to Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria.
BAK: I believe it has achieved a lot. I try to look at these things with a “developer’s mentality”.  The Muslim lands were in such a poor condition for so long that it wasn’t realistic that they would suddenly emerge from such a restrictive and dark time without some of the turmoil we are seeing today.
Have the people of the region seen the fruits of the Arab Spring? Not yet, but just three and a half years from the start of the spring, we can’t expect to see results just yet. I’m focused on seeing all of this as ground work for what we will see in 2016 and 2017 insh’Allah.
DH: Have you covered any other wars besides Syria?
BAK: Syria is my first war coverage. However, I did work in Libya shortly after the fall of Gadaffi.  American journalists running around in Libya was a dangerous business. I admit, I do tell people sometimes I am fromNigeria or Kenya. It helps keep my name off the kidnap lists…sometimes.
DH: What made you go to Syria? Was there something that stood out which made it different to other conflicts in the region?
BAK: Initially I went to Syria to cover the rebels in general. Then I became fascinated with what I was seeing from the foreign fighters. They were a fierce lot to say the least. I met Umar Shishaani (Chechnya) and asked him if I could film one of his fighters and do a story about him. This was before there was an ISIS. He agreed and I started a journey that has taken me to what you see today.
DH: Do you think the uprising in Syria was sectarian to begin with or was it genuinely a political protest against an oppressive dictator?
BAK: I don’t think it was either of the two. Demanding basic rights like the right to contest indefinite detention, the right to not have your sons murdered in cold blood are not political aspirations – these are human aspirations.
The Syrian revolution started in Homs
The Syrian revolution started in Homs
As expected, the regime responded to the Syrian people’s request with more killing to scare off the activists. It didn’t work. At that time the Syrian people were not very religious and didn’t really care who was Sunni, who was Shia and who was Alawi. They all lived together and got along relatively well. However, once the revolution started and the regime started losing ground, they turned to Iran and Hezbollah for help – this made the conflict sectarian. It wasn’t before that.
DH: When did you arrive in Syria and who initially hosted you?
BAK: My first trip to Syria was in the summer of 2012. I was initially hosted by Ahrar al-Sham. They were a very aggressive rebel group whose leadership was made up of many ex-prisoners that were in Assad’s torture chambers.
Ahrar al-Sham’s leader, Hassan Abboud was one of the most interesting people I met. When I first arrived in Syria I was waiting for him for a few days at their headquarters. I didn’t know what he looked like. From the way people spoke about him they had great respect for him as a leader and generally didn’t make a move without his approval. I was an American journalist and initially they didn’t trust me. I wondered what his reaction to me would be. When arrived, flanked by members of his group, he asked me: “Bilal, how do I know you don’t work for the CIA?”  It was a conversation I’ll never forget!
DH: Would you say there is a strong Islamic sentiment to the Syrian revolution?
Syrian rebels
Syrian rebels
BAK: No less than 75% of the active fighters in this conflict come from an Islamic group. There is no way that this group can be overlooked no matter how much the west may want to try and install some type of puppet democratic government. I have long said that the only way out of this situation is by creating win-win solutions. Cheap media tricks and setting up paper dictators is a ploy that is old and tired. It worked for many years but I think that day is over.
If we are serious about creating a better future for all concerned then that is the way forward. These fighters are 90% Syrian born and bred, so no one can come and say that somehow only the foreigners want “Islamic governance”.
DH: You made contact with numerous rebel factions, who were united upon removing Bashar al Assad but differed in their vision of Syria post-Assad. How did external superpowers and their regional proxies influence this?
BAK: To be honest, and I know this is going to sound strange, but as much as superpowers have tried to influence the rebels I think they have all failed, with exception to ISIS. However, ISIS is not (to my knowledge) the product of an identified state. The US tried really hard to get the Syrian National Council (SNC) to be the power brokers in this conflict but they just don’t have the support of the people.
I would hear all the time of how Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey were controlling events on the ground but I never saw it. I slept next to and ate with many of the fighters, both foreign and Syrian, including their commanders and they were struggling for ammunition and money to buy food for their fighters. Most of the weapons were seized from the regime.
I sincerely believe that Saudi Arabia’s influence has been severely overstated. Much of what is happening in Syria is so out of line with Saudi policy it is almost laughable to think they had a hand in creating it. Turkey is a strict secular country, why would they try to fuel an Islamic revolution? The Qataris helped out in a big way on the humanitarian front but I must admit I didn’t see or hear of any shipments of weapons coming in saying “Made in Qatar” on them.
Do I believe that some military assistance was provided to the rebels? Sure I do, but the the Islamic fervour is organically homegrown. This is why most outside players have no real power or sway to control the resistance.
DH: What role do you think the West, namely the US and the UK have played in the Syrian conflict? How has there policy changed since the start of the war?
BAK: Firstly, the UK rarely has its own foreign policy agenda. Whatever America says, the Brits will follow. Both the US and Britain started off by saying they supported the rebels, and they really wanted them to win too! They were hedging their bets that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) could take out Assad and they could wave some money and power under their noses and they will have installed a Western-friendly government in Damascus without breaking a sweat. It didn’t happen. Islamic fighters took over the revolution and the west has been reeling ever since to come up with a coherent policy on Syria.
If America and Britain want to play a role in helping the people of Syria grow and prosper then they would have to start with a cessation of treating all Islamic fighters as “terrorists”. There is absolutely no benefit for the American people in this style of policy. It is inaccurate and it actually stokes the fires of hatred in the hearts of those who would not normally be their traditional enemy.
Some of the rebel factions have been infiltrated by the Syrian and American intelligence services.
Some of the rebel factions have been infiltrated by the Syrian intelligence services.
DH: What role has neighbouring Muslim countries played? Namely Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?
BAK: Turkey has been a great help to the Syrian people. Prime Minister Erdogan didn’t try to act like some politician when this crisis started, he acted like a human being. The people were suffering and he responded by helping them – end of story. While I don’t agree with everything he says and does, I can certainly say that I have a lot of respect for him on a level I do not have for other senior officials in the region and I’d like to tell him that one day.
The Qataris have been extremely generous in helping their Muslim brothers and sisters in need as well as spending millions of dollars in aid. I’d love to see the government help people because they need it, and not because it suits their country’s strategic interest only.
As for the Saudi’s, they too have been generous in their provision of humanitarian aid. However, the true help from Saudi Arabia came from the ordinary people – not the government.  In my view, they are the true heroes of the Arabian Peninsula.
DH: What role has Russia, Iran and Hezbollah played in the Syrian conflict?
BAK: I do not see that they have a constructive role to play in this affair. Propping up this murderous regime is a stain that will stay on their respective country’s records. How anyone could think that allowing one who orders barrel bombs to be dropped on innocent men, women, and children to stay in power helps the Syrian people is beyond me. Truly it’s astonishing how these people sleep at night, looking at the death toll and persisting in helping Assad. The best thing they can do is to simply stay out of it.
In part 2 of the interview, Bilal describes how the Syrian people responded to foreign fighters, the numerous rebel factions he met including Al Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra and its splinter group ISIS.
You can follow Bilal Abdul Kareem on Twitter @BilalKareem and Dilly Hussain @DillyHussain88