Saturday, September 27, 2014

Reply to Article by Muhana Al-Jubail: Can Democracy be an Alternative to the Khilafah in Achieving Unity?

On 23 August 2014, Aljazeera website published an article in the Knowledge section by Professor Muhanna Al-Jubail titled: "Unity and Khilafah and Democracy", the writer addressed through it what he called the conservatives among Muslim youth, who are wary of the acceptance of democracy or to exercise it in order to achieve the Islamic unity. This unity is undoubtedly obligatory in the definite texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
The writer attempted to promote the idea that "there is a deep problem in the understanding of the democratic constitutional system; the constitutional system is what guarantees for citizens of religions and sects their constitutional national right". And he said, "Countries that live in a democratic space or margin is the most capable today to achieve the standards of agreement and connection with the concept of Islamic unity more than other totalitarian regimes."
After the writer promoted the idea that democracy is the most capable in achieving the unity, he tried to hint that the concept of the Khilafah is a term of no Shariah origins, and considered the Khilafah to be a name given in history to those who undeservingly inherited the rule through inheritance. Then he presented a vision to achieve the Khilafah through a federal union between a band of countries whereby the Chairman of the Union acts as the Khaleefah!
The author concluded that the area of theoretical jurisprudence and intellectual foundation of the term 'Khilafah' in Shariah and in the history of Muslims and later in its contemporary political implications, is not as believed to be by some of the young people, and is not a reasonable justification for rejecting a political framework that is achievable by democracy for the creation of this country as a political and social force for certain Muslim people or others, and to support the legitimate resistance for liberation. Thereby, the Muslims must adhere to the democratic project to achieve unity and strength between their countries...
Commenting on the article's contents, we say: after placing the term "democratic state" and scrutinizing and highlighting it, we find that the West has relied on three loose, fanciful, and failed criteria to characterize a state as democratic: constitutional definition, Substantive measure, and procedural (due process). These three, each of which contain within it a set of contradictions, and its application is fictitious! ... A country like Jamaica is classified as having a degree of democratic success for conducting the elections in a way admired by the people of democracy, despite the assault of Jamaica's regime against the people of the country, which is according to them is an attack on "democratic freedoms". And a country like Iraq is classified as exceptionally democratic, yet until recently it was ruled by Maliki, who has exceeded in criminality the criminality of Saddam!... As for the ballot boxes in Egypt after the revolution of January 2011, which brought the government of Morsi, which came to rule as was said by the process of "transparent and fair elections", was attacked and aborted and Morsi was overthrown by the military, and all this with the blessing and sponsorship of the mother of democracy, America!..
In light of the failure of the implementation of the democratic model in actuality, we wonder about the writer's objective to advocate the embracing and adoption of a fanciful system that is full of contradictions and is unachievable in actuality and to abandon the Khilafah system which emanates from the doctrine of this Ummah, and is deeply rooted in their history where it was applicable for nearly fourteen centuries? Then does the writer not see that clinging to a system that carries within it failure and is fictitious and non-applicable is like clinging to a rope from the air and chasing after fairy tales?
It was mentioned in the article that democracy is a model for the protection of people's rights despite the fact that this contradicts the reality and the applications that are practiced by the elite democratic countries, so France prevents Muslim women from wearing the headscarf, and Switzerland prohibits the construction of minarets. As for American drone aircrafts, they spill the blood of Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia... Even more they are used to assassinate American citizens because they are Muslims without the slightest regard for legal judicial procedures. As for the list of executions provided by the American intelligence services, which won Obama's approval is endless, until it reached the implementation of some of these laws against minors, this is without elaboration of: the support the democratic West to the greatest crime called "Israel", and the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram, this is without going back to the black record of America in Vietnam, or even World War II and what took place of horrors... and finally we ask has democracy bring anything to humanity but evil, slaughter, and corruption?
Finally, the Khilafah is a Shariah fact, just as is the unity a Shariah fact, there are many texts regarding these subjects in the Quran and Sunnah and with the demonstration of its bases, there is no dispute in the obligation of the presence of the Khilafah among the Ummah and the Imams, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا
"It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error."
(Al-Ahzab: 36)
Khilafah is not just choosing a Khaleefah through the pledge of allegiance, but it is a comprehensive system for life that covers: social, economic, ruling, judiciary, education and punishments, all these systems were embodied in the Islamic State throughout the centuries of the application of Islam, hence an ideological state that carried the light and justice has emerged to the world, it guaranteed the unity and protection of the Ummah and its belief and sanctities.
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاك إِلَّا رَحْمَة لِلْعَالَمِينَ
"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds"
(Al-Anbiya: 107)
The Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
Saturday 4th Dhul Qiddah 1435 AH
30/08/2014 CE
Issue No: 1435 AH /063

The Shar’iyah Methodology for the Resumption of the Islamic Way of Life- Intrdouction

We will be publishing sections of the book " The Shar'iyah Methodology for the Resumption of the Islamic way of Life- by Muhammad Hussein Abdullah"

The following  introduction is from a book

The introduction:

All praise belongs to the Lord of the worlds and all creation, who revealed the Qur’aan as guidance for the pious and sent Muhammad (saw) as a Rahmah (mercy) for the whole world. He sent His Messenger to bring mankind out of the darkness of disbelief and to bring them to the certain light.

The Muslims, since the destruction of their Khilafah in the year 1924, at the hands of the disbelievers and their agents, have lived and continue to live a life of divisions, instability, weakness and insignificance. So after they were the leaders of the world they have become led and after having been one Ummah to the exclusion of all people they have now become divided people separated by manufactured borders that lie between them. They are ruled by man-made systems and their weak entities, that number more than fifty, do not benefit them or take them away from being considered part of the third world and they are helpless before the disbelievers if they wish to usurp and take away parts of their lands like they have done in Palestine amongst other lands.
They have experimented with and been experimented upon with thoughts and man-made systems which have been taken from both the East and the West. These were taken so that they could revive and unify, however these foreign imports gained nothing for them except further weakness upon weakness. This led them to reassess themselves and to search deeply within themselves for the reason of that great glory which had made them leaders and for the reason for this new weakness that had made them into followers of others. They were then guided to the first reason which was their holding fast to Islaam as an Aqeedah (Belief) and system of life and the second reason which was their abandoning of Islaam as a system of life. This sensation within the Muslims was focused in individuals and groups who held a higher level of sensation above others. So they started to embark upon calling for the return of Islaam and the resumption of the Islamic way of life whilst being armed with the Ijtihaadaat (derived opinions) that they had arrived at in regards to this issue. Therefore movements, political parties, groups and individuals arose in most of the Muslim lands calling towards that.
However the disbelieving states and other nations who follow other than the Deen of Islaam felt the seriousness and danger of this matter. Therefore they stood in opposition to it, to prevent it, using all available intellectual and material ways to accomplish that whilst employing many different styles and means. They described everyone who called for the return of Islaam to life as a political system with labels of extremism, militancy and terrorism. They began to hold conferences and seminars in the name of interfaith dialogue or a dialogue between civilisations. They made money available and recruited men in the name of dealing a decisive blow against terrorism and extremism. This was all to stand in the face of the return of Islaam whilst seeking assistance from some of the sons of the Muslims to stand by their side who had abandoned their Ummah because of their own ignorance of Islaam or due to their love for money. They did find this enough though but rather they attempted to influence some of the movements, political parties and groups. So they beautified some western thoughts about Islaam to them by portraying them to be from Islaam and this was in order to divert them from the Shar’iy (legal and legitimate) method that leads to the return of the Islamic Khilafah.
The Tareeqah (Methodology) to resume the Islamic way of life must be taken from Islaam alone because it is a complete and comprehensive ideology containing the Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method). Indeed it is a thought and a method and its method must be of the same type and kind as its thought. For this reason it is not permitted for those working in the Da’wah, to be diverted by even a hairs breadth away from the method because Allah (swt) has made this method Fard (obligatory). It is the Method that the Messenger of Allah (saw) proceeded upon until he established the Islamic State in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, the Islamic State that lasted for over 1300 years before it was destroyed at the hands of the disbelievers.
Then after the destruction of the Khilafah State the Muslims did not have at their disposal clear, prepared and ready Shar’iyah rulings explaining the method by which the State should be restored and re-established. They had other Shar’iyah rulings (Ahkaam) at their disposal which were abundant in the books of Fiqh dealing with ‘Ibaadaat (worships), Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions) and ‘Uqoobaat (punishments). This was because the Muslims had been living an Islamic life within the Khilafah State and they had not imagined nor had it crossed their minds that this State would ever disappear. And because Fiqh according to the understanding of the Muslims is the ‘Knowledge of the practical Shar’iyah rulings’ then the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Tareeqah for the restoration or reestablishment of the Khilafah State were not previously looked in to. This is because the State had been present and had not yet been removed from existence. So this reality that we face today (since the removal of the Khilafah State) had not previously existed.
However after the Khilafah State was destroyed and the Muslims began to sense the new reality in which they were living, it became obligatory upon them to begin to deal with this reality in accordance to the Ahkaam (rulings) of Islaam. So they began to move towards the Shar’iyah method of resuming the Islamic life by examining the Seerah (life) of the Nabi (saw). As a result some of them viewed the method as raising arms and fighting anyone that stood in the way of the return of the Khilafah whilst some others viewed the method as being related to At-Tassawuf or Siyaahah in the way of Allah. Others still saw that the method for resuming the Islamic life rested upon charitable associations and the propagations of moralistic virtues, some viewed the method as being linked to reviving the Islamic heritage represented in knowledge of Tafseer, Hadeeth and Fiqh, whilst others saw that the methodology involved intellectual and political work. Every one of these views was based upon a Daleel (evidence) or a Shubhah (semblance) of a Daleel from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. As such this study that we are concerned with, relates to the Shar’iyah Tareeqah (method) that is extracted and deduced from the Kitaab and the Sunnah, after first including a study of the current reality that we are living in.

I ask Allah (swt) for this study to act as an incentive for those who are proceeding upon the correct method to enrich their path so that their objective can be achieved. At the same time I ask Allah (swt) to make this study to be a spur and incentive for others in order for them to scrutinise and to be thorough in respect to the rulings of the Method. This is so that the Muslims as a whole can collectively proceed upon the correct path to achieve the honour of the Dunyaa and the reward of the hereafter:

وَلَِِّلِّ الْعِزَّةُ وَلِرَسُولِهِ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِيَ
And the honour belongs to Allah, and to the His Messenger and to the believers
(Al-Munaafiqoon 8)

Do verses beginning with "O you who believe" apply only to Muslims?

It should not be said that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has made some legal rulings specifically for the believers like the prayer such that they alone are addressed by it, so any address which begins with,
يا أيها الذين ءامنوا
"O you who believe,"
is specific for the Muslims, and what came general, like the trade and ribā, is for the Muslims and the disbelievers. This is incorrect because the objective of that which begins with 'O you who believe' is reminding [tadhkīr] the believers of their Imān. It is not a specification for the believers alone.
The evidence for this is Allah سبحانه وتعالى's saying:
يا أيها الذين ءامنوا كُتب عليكم القصاص
"O you who believe, qisās (equal retribution) has been prescribed on you..."
(al-Baqarah: 178)
and it is established that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم made the retribution for the killing upon the kuffār just as it is upon the Muslims without any difference, and also because the sayings of Allah سبحانه وتعالى:
لمن كان يرجوا الله واليوم الآخر
"...for him who hopes for Allah and the Last Day",
فردّوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر
"Refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day..."
من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر
"He who believes in Allah and the last day..."
whose context indicate that they are a reminder to the believers about the (natural) requirement of Imān in Allah and the Last Day.
The first verse is,
لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة لمن كان يرجوا الله واليوم الآخر
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah, you have a good example for him who hopes for Allah and the Last Day."
(al-Ahzab: 21)
The second verse is,
فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردّوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر
"And if differ in a thing, refer it back to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day."
(al-Nisā': 59)
The third verse is,
ذلكم يوعظ به من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر
"That will be an admonition given to him who believes in Allah and the Last Day."
(al-Talāq: 2)
All these verses are a reminder (and not a specification).
Likewise is the hadīth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم,
"Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last, then let him speak good or keep silent", narrated by al-Bukhāri, Muslim and others.
All of this is a reminder of the Imān, and not a condition for legal responsibility with respect to the legal rulings.
Therefore, the conjunction of the address with 'O you who believe' does not specify it for the Muslims, but it is a reminder to them of their belief. Accordingly, the address of legal responsibility remains general, including both the disbelievers and the Muslims. Hence the kuffār are addressed with the entirety of the Shari'ah, foundations (creed) as well as branches (jurisprudence), and the Khalifah is commanded to implement all the legal rulings upon them. Excluded from the implementation, but not the address, are those legal rulings whose non-implementation on the kuffār or whose specificity to the Muslims is established by a text of the Qur'an or Hadīth.
All other legal rulings are implemented upon the kuffar as they are implemented on the Muslims.
Source: The Islamic Personality Volume 3 by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.

It is Haram for a Muslim to go to other than the Hukm Ash-Shar'iy in his actions

Allah (swt) said: 

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آَمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا (60) وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ رَأَيْتَ الْمُنَافِقِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنْكَ صُدُودًا

Have you seen those who claim that they have believed in that which was revealed to you and what was revealed to those who came before you. They want to go to judgement to the Taghout whilst Allah has commanded that you disbelieve in it, and Shaytaan wishes to lead you far astray. And if it is said to them come to the Messenger you see the Munaafiqeen (hypocrites) turning away from you with complete aversion (An-Nisaa 60-61).

And Allah Ta'Aalaa said:

And He (swt) said:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

But no by your Lord they will not believe until they make you judge in that which occurs of dispute amongst them and then do not find within themselves any resistance in that which you have judged and submit with complete submission (An-Nisaa 65).

And Allah 'Azza wa Jalla said:

وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

And whatsoever the Messenger has brought to you take it and whatsoever he has forbidden you abstain from it. And fear Allah for verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr).

This Daleel establishes the obligation of the Muslim to abide by the Hukm Ash-Shar'iy in addition to the Tahreem (prohibition) of the Muslim to judge by other than the Hukm Ash-Shar'iy in any matter from amongst all matters. This is because Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to take what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought to them in terms of what Allah has made obligatory (Fard) upon them, recommended (Mandoob) for them and made permissible (Mubaah) for them. And He (swt) commanded them to abstain from that which He has forbidden them in terms of what He (swt) has prohibited (made Haraam) upon them and what he has made disliked for them (Makrooh). Therefore every Talab (request) that the Messenger (saw) came with from Allah is Waajib (obligatory) to abide by, whether it was a request to do something (Talab ul-Fi’l) like the Furood and Mandoobaat, or if it was a request to leave (Talab ut-Tark) like the Muharramaat and Makroohaat, or if it represented a choice between doing and leaving like the Mubaahaat. All of them fall under the speech:

وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا

And whatsoever the Messenger has brought to you take it and whatsoever he has forbidden you abstain from it.

This is because the ‘Maa’ (Whatsoever) is from the Siyagh Al-‘Umoom (forms of generality) and as such it is general in respect to what it came with and here it refers to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. The Aayah was revealed in relation to the division and distribution of the Fa’iy (booty) amongst the Muhaajiroon to the exclusion of the Ansaar i.e. it dealt with a Hukm (ruling) from amongst the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. Its context and subject area is therefore the Hukm Shar’iy established by the action of the Nabi (saw) and it came in the form of generality ‘And whatsoever he brought to you’ and ‘Whatsoever he has forbidden you’. It therefore covers (is general for) all of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah’.

If we link this Aayah with the speech of Allah (swt):

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

And let those who go against His command be warned that they will be afflicted by a Fitnah or they will be afflicted by a painful punishment (An-Noor 63).

It indicates that the command in the statement: ‘Take it’ and in the statement: ’Abstain’ is a command of Wujoob (obligation) and as such it is obligatory upon every Muslim to adopt the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy and to restrict himself to it (i.e. abide by it). This alone is sufficient to indicate the Tahreem (prohibition) of taking from (adopting) other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy because the Mafhoum (what is understood) from:

وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا

And whatsoever the Messenger has brought to you take it and whatsoever he has forbidden you abstain from it (Al-Hashr).

Is that anything which the Messenger (saw) did not bring and did not forbid is not permitted to pay any regard to it. Additionally taking or adopting other than what the Messenger (saw) brought and abstaining from other than what he forbade represents a contravention to the command of the Messenger (saw) i.e. it goes against that which he requested because the meaning of the ‘Amr’ (command) is that of ‘Talab’ (request).

The Qur’aan has reinforced this meaning in a decisive manner when it negates the completeness of Imaan of the one who judges by other than the Messenger (saw) i.e. by other than the Sharee’ah of Islaam in its consideration as the Message of the Messenger. We have lament those who wish to go to judgement to other than what the Messenger (saw) came with in terms of the Islamic Sharee’ah, those who referred their judgment to other than him, to Taghoot despite the rebuke attached to that.

Ibn Abi Haatim in a Saheeh chain reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said:
‘Abu Barzah Al-Aslamiy was a Rabbi who used to judge between the Jews in their disagreements. Then some from amongst the Muslims took their disagreements to him and then Allah (swt) revealed:

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آَمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ

Have you seen those who claim that they have believed in that which was revealed to you… (An-Nisaa’ 60).

This therefore indicates in a decisive form and manner that referring to other than the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah is considered as referring to Taghoot and Allah (swt) has said about it that Shaytaan wishes to take astray the one who does that.

In addition the Qur’aan did not just rebuke the one who judges by other than the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah but rather it negated the completeness of Imaan of the one who is not content with the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. It happened that a Jew and a Munaafiq disputed over a matter and then the Munaafiq requested Ka’b Bin Ashraf (the head of the Jews) to judge between them whilst the Jew sought the judgement of the Nabi (saw). They then went to the Nabi (saw) and he judged in favour of the Jew whilst the Munaafiq (hypocrite) was not pleased and content with that due to his hypocrisy.

And Allah (swt) has said:

وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ

But no by your Lord they will not believe until they make you judge in that which occurs of dispute amongst them

However the command of Allah (swt) did not find it enough to make the judgement alone to the Shar’a but rather stipulated that there be contentment and acceptance to the Hukm as He (swt) said:

ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

Then do not find within themselves any resistance in that which you have judged and submit with complete submission

This indicates and guides to it not being sufficient to abide by the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy due to fearing the authority like the Munaafiq but rather it is necessary for the Muslim to be at peace with the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy and do submit to it with the fullest and most complete submission.

For that reason it is Haraam for the Muslim top judge in any of his actions in their entirety to other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. It is therefore Haraam for him to judge by the Qawaaneen (laws) just as it is Haraam for him to judge by the norms, traditions and customs. It is also Haraam for him to pass judgment by the ‘Aql (mind) and to pass judgment based upon the Maslahah (benefit/interest). This is because Allah (swt) has specified the direction in which the Muslim must judge by in his actions and this direction is that which the Messenger of Allah (saw) came with and brought, whilst referring to a different source for judgement is considered as going to judgment to Taghoot.

Therefore referring the judgement to the Maslahah (benefit/interest), the ‘Aql (mind), the ‘Aaraaf (customs) or the ‘Aadaat (norms/traditions) is just like referring the judgement to the laws and all other rulings of Kufr. All of them represent referring the judgement to At-Taghoot.

So the Muslims became alerted to the fact that they have no choice except to return back to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy and make it alone the judge in respect to their actions. This is because abiding by it is Fard upon and like the Fard of the Salaah it has been established by evidence which is Qat’iy (decisive) in Thuboot (transmission) and Qat’iy in Dalaalah (meaning/import). We warn them in respect to referring to judgement to anything other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy because it means referring to judgment to At-Taghoot and judging by the rulings of Kufr (disbelief).

Beirut 8th Ramadhaan 1380

Friday, September 26, 2014

Q&A: Ijma as- Sahaba

Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuhu, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى grant you victory and aid you in what pleases Him... I have a question: It is mentioned in the book "Al Shakhsiyya," (The Islamic Personality) Volume 3, (p. 269 Arabic edition/ p. 240 English edition) in the chapter "(Al Bayaan Wa Al Mubaiyan) The Clarification And The Clarified", it is mentioned: "The clarification (bayaan) could be a saying of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and it could be an action of the Messenger." The question did not mention the consensus of the Sahaba in the bayaan (clarification), so can the consensus of the Sahaba be considered a bayaan mujmal (general clarification), and is the Khilafah and its rules which were acted upon and shown by the Sahaba considered to be a general clarification" and "rule between them by what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed," please explain? Wa Alaikum Assallam
Abu Al Walid Al Chami

Wa Alaikum Assallam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuh,
What has been mentioned in the third volume of "Al Shakhsiyya," (The Islamic Personality) "The clarification (bayaan) could be a saying of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and it could be an action of the Messenger..." this text contains consensus, because the consensus reveals a proof from the Sunnah which the Sahaba understood. So, when this case was presented, they said its rule without seeing the Hadith because it was known to them, for example: The inheritance of the grandparent with the son, that is if a person dies and he has a son and a grandparent, was presented, so how much is the inheritance of the grandparent? The Sahaba's consensus was that he inherits sixth of the inheritance, which means that they heard a hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and since they knew it they stated the rule without providing the evidence. This is why the consensus of the Sahaba reveals proof, which means that the Hadith of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was not narrated by the Sahaba but they mentioned the rule directly.
Therefore, the mentioned text in the book "Al Shakhsiyya" contains inclusive consensus since a consensus is reached based on Hadith by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.
It is mentioned in the third volume of the book "Al Shakhsiyya," in the Chapter of Consensus, (p. 295 Arabic edition/ p. 268 English edition), the following:
Fourthly: The consensus of the Sahaabah refers to the Shari'ah text itself, for they didn't consent on a verdict unless they had a Shar'i evidence from the saying, the action or the approval of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم that they relied on it, so their Ijmaa' had disclosed an evidence, and this is not attainable to other than the Sahaabah; because it is them who accompanied the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and from them we have received our religion, therefore their consensus is the proof and other than that is not a proof, for the Sahaabah didn't consent on a matter unless they had a Shar'i evidence for it they didn't narrate it, so the consensus of the Sahaabah is a Shar'i evidence for the quality that it discloses an evidence, not for the quality that it is their own opinion.
From this, the answer to your last question is explained... yes, what is mentioned about the consensus of the Sahaba (ra) in the matter of the Khilafah is a clarification of the Ayat (verses) about ruling from the Holy Quran.
Your brother
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
14 Dhul Qiddah 1435 AH
09/09/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Saturday, September 20, 2014

A Call to the Fighter Organizations and the Clans in Iraq and Ash-Sham: Stop the Infighting amongst Yourselves

A Call to the Fighter Organizations and the Clans in Iraq and Ash-Sham: Stop the Infighting amongst Yourselves Since America Exploits your fighting to Intervene Militarily in your Country

Events in Iraq and Syria have accelerated, and accelerated with it are Obama’s remarks on 18/08/2014, and the remarks of his Defense Secretary Hegel and the Chief of Staff Dempsey, at the press conference on 22/08/2014, about Obama’s long-term strategy for military intervention in the region, and about the way to create an international coalition that supports military intervention by America. All this after open demands appeared by some people of the region, politicians and military personnel, for American intervention! America has already begun aerial intervention in Iraq. The Syrian Coalition on 16/08/2014 has insisted on American intervention in Syria, following the example of intervention in Iraq, and admonished America for practicing double standards – intervening in Iraq but not Syria!
The Muslims and people of the region spat out America after they had lived under its brutal aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, yet now the best of their best pleads rather implores their military intervention by choice and willingness. Indeed this is a domineering evil over the evil of its repressive and forced intervention. Thus, to be attacked by a snake and you fend it off is a thousand times better than to bring the snake with your own hands into your home to kill you, your children and everyone else in the house! As though those who seek light from the fire of America have hazed eyes, deaf ears, and blinded vision!
But what prompted the time and place for such events? And what made America plot and seek intervention and what made some people of the region demand that, so much so that they declare it without modesty or shame? The observer in that sees that America took advantage of the fighting between the revolutionary movements in Syria and Iraq. So after the rising of these movements to remove the rule of the tyrants, these revolution movements upturned; except whom Allah has given mercy, they have turned into fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting between them and the Kaffir colonizers, or between them and the regime that they came out to change! And on top of all this and that, none of these warring parties questioned: Why is all this happening? Where is all of this happening from the stated goal, for which these movements came out? In addition, none of them stands to wonder: Why these parties dispute, the ISIS organization and the other movements. Why are they disputing over what is in their hands of the liberated areas from the regime rather than to fight in order to liberate other areas from the hands of the regime?
O Muslims: We from our position in Hizb ut Tahrir call for the Muslims in the ISIS Organization, armed movements and the tribes to stop battling each other and to pledge to amend that which is between them, and not to incline toward those who do wrong, or they will be touched by the Fire… We address them from the perspective of protection for the interests of the Muslims, and the pain and sorrow tears our hearts when we see the ISIS organization and other movements during their combat, shouting Takbeers at a time when each is keen to finish off the other! We are addressing all of these, and the pain wrenches us… And we address this call to them with hope and expectancy:
First: to the ISIS organization that it should fear Allah in what it does, so it stops killing Muslims, as the blood of a Muslim is great to Allah. And it should retract from what it announced of the unlawful alleged Caliphate, as the path to Khilafah is well known and is not obscure. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has demonstrated it in his Seerah in a luminous white manifestation, which is seeking Nusrah (support) from the people of power in a country that has elements of a state, then to take the allegiance (Bayah) of the people of that country with satisfaction and by choice… But ISIS did not take what the Shariah has enjoined, and all work based on non-Islamic order leads to conflict and strife, and so it was. Fighting flared between ISIS and other movements, and the relationship between them became blood stained. Every land that ISIS enters, its people flee from it rather than attaining security besides it… So let ISIS retract from those offences, and retracting a mistake is a virtue.
Second: to other combatant movements that seek the help of America, the West, agents and followers… Your seeking of help from the colonial Kaffir is an offence, as well as it is the loss of insight and vision. How can America or the West help you to overthrow the agents who they installed except that they want you to become new agents in their place? Every sane person knows that this is like the one who jumped out of the frying pan into the fire, is there not among you a man of reason?
Third: to the tribes… to the chivalry of the men, and the warmth of the Islamic sentiments, and the people’s appreciation and respect for you, do not support any of these Muslim fighting parties; they are not fighting the colonial Kaffir. And although they profess that their uprising is on tyrant regimes to change them, but they do not come together to confront these regimes, rather they gather their guile to fight each other… So take them with an iron fist, and gather them on the guidance, so their course to be one Islamic course, a rightly guided Khilafah, which under its shadows people are safe and are not afraid… And they reject partition, division, regions and territories…
Fourth: and then to those who are
إِلَّا مَنْ رَحِمَ رَبُّكَ
“Except whom your Lord has given mercy”
(Hud: 119)
who are true to what they promised Allah, and have committed to support Allah and His Messenger to establish the rightly guided Khilafah… To those who have distanced themselves from fighting with other Islamist movements, and continued to achieve the goal that they came out for… Remain steadfast on the right that you are on, and do not be affected by those who see you as a lesser gathering than those movements that are immersed in the blood of Muslims. Thus a sincere few gathering is heavier in Allah’s scale than the multitude of the false, and the best outcome is for the righteous.
وَنُرِيدُ أَنْ نَمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ
“And We wanted to confer favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors”
(Al-Qasas: 5)
O Muslims: Hizb ut Tahrir has spent about sixty years remaining steadfast on the right which it calls for, committed to the way of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in seeking Nusrah to establish the ruling of Islam on earth without budging an inch. This is despite the arguments that were spread that seeking Nusrah is a long path and that the use of force to impose the rule on the people is shorter and closer. These people did not realize that the case is not the access to the rule, of any rule, nor the following of any method, but the issue is Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood. And the method was drawn by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and he صلى الله عليه وسلم enlightened it and brightened it by the revelation from Al-Aziz al-Hakim (the Exalted in Might, the Wise.)… Any other method may lead to the rule sooner, but to a painful morbid rule, that does not satisfy Allah, His Messenger and the believers… As Khilafah is not an empty name of its content… rather it is a safe and secure Khilafah. People emigrate to it seeking security and safety under its shade, and not fleeing from it from fear and oppression… A Khilafah where people obtain security in it for themselves, their honor, wealth and homes, and not spilling blood in it, violating honors, destroying homes and encroaching wealth… A Khilafah that not only spreads goodness in the Muslim countries, but carries its civilization to the world. A Khilafah where Muslims and non-Muslims attain security and everyone takes their right in justice and contentment…
Hizb ut Tahrir is a guide that does not lie to its people, and it is from you and with you in this call… It calls whoever has a heart and reason, whoever listens while he is present in mind as a witness, to exert effort, even if his best was to speak half of the word, then let him do so to stop the fighting between the Muslims of ISIS organization and other revolting movements and the clans, perhaps in time… where Muslims will stop battling each other, and they go forth in one row in the face of alliances of the military intervention that is planned and led by the United States. So this mobilization afflicts those alliances’ conspiracies with destruction, and stop the evil before it worsens… This call, Allah willing, is honest and sincere, we address it to whoever has a heart and listens while he is present in mind, so that he has an influential role in the victory of Islam and Muslims, and to repel the machination of the colonial Kaffir… While those who do not hear nor see, the Powerful, the Exalted in Might has informed us about them:
إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ
“Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.”
(Al-Anfal: 22)
Hizb ut Tahrir
28th Shawwal 1435 AH
24/08/2014 CE
The above is a draft translation from Arabic.

The Obligatory Conditions for a Khilafah

In recent weeks politicians and world media have been discussing the potential establishment of a new Caliphate (Khilafah) in Iraq linking this to the “Sunni insurgency” currently taking place there.
Western media unsurprisingly have used various adjectives to conjure up in the minds of their audience a “medieval” state, out of place in the 21st century. On the other hand many Muslims see the Khilafah as an Islamic obligation, longing to see its return and believing it will provide a positive future for the Muslim world. However, with the Muslims having lived for almost a century without the Khilafah, the details of what the Khilafah is have become hazy and uncertain. This confusion has led to various claims to the post of Khaleefah including King Fuad of Egypt in 1926, King Hussain of Jordan in 1924 and even Metin Kaplan in the 80s while living in Germany. Therefore having clarity as to the criteria of the post and the nature of the Khilafah is critical in order to properly assess any future or current claims.
The Role of the Khaleefah
Allah swt states in the Quran:

الَّذِينَ إِنْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَمَرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَنَهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَلِلَّهِ عَاقِبَةُ الْأُمُورِ

“(They are) Those who, if We establish in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: With God rests the end (and decisions) of (all) affairs.” [Al-Hajj: 41]
Referring to these four actions mentioned in the Ayah Dahhak mentioned it is a condition placed by Allah upon whoever He (swt) gives ruling authority (mulk). Imam an-Nasafi further detailed the role of the Khaleefah by stating:‘The Muslims simply must have an Imam (Khaleefah), who will execute the rules, establish the Hudood (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect Zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and the highwaymen, establish Jum’ah and the two ‘Eids, settle the dispute among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty.’ Aqaa’id Al-Nasafiyyah
Therefore the role of the Khaleefah isn’t a ceremonial head of State, but rather he is contracted through the Bai’ah(pledge of allegiance) to implement the Shariah comprehensively in a territory (Dar al-Islam) which he has control over.
Contracting the Khaleefah
The proofs for the Bai’ah are numerous, for example in Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. Abi Umayyah who said: “We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (Kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah.”
The validity of the above contract (Bai’ah) depends on a number of factors.
Firstly, the Khaleefah is contracted to rule by Islam only. Any contract of ruling based on any other source of legislation would render the Bai’ah invalid. In fact if the Khaleefah permanently diverts away from the implementation of Islam then his rule becomes invalidated and his removal obliged upon the Muslims.
Secondly, the Khaleefah himself must fulfil certain conditions such as being a Muslim, male, mature, sane, free, just and capable. Capable implies the mental and physical capability to implement the Shariah amongst the Ummah. Similarly being free implies they are independent and not governed or controlled by any other person or entity. As for other conditions such as of Quraishi decent or mujtahid then these were differed over by the ulema, however the seven listed above are agreed upon.
Thirdly, from the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and from the sunnah of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen we see the Bai’ahis of two types. Bai’atul-in’iqad (pledge of contractual agreement) and Bai’atul-Taa’ah (pledge of obedience).
As for the Bai’ah of contractual agreement, this is a key necessary component for the validity of the Khaleefah and differentiates him from any person who receives any Bai’ah. During the second pledge of al Aqaba the Prophet (saw) received the pledge from seventy three men and two women of Yathrib who themselves represented the leadership, and therefore opinion, of the rest of the people of Yathrib. In addition when the Prophet (saw) approach the various tribes to obtain nusrah (material support to establish the Islamic state) he first determined whether they were influential tribal leaders who could provide internal and external security for the Islamic State. After ascertaining this he would invite them to Islam and request their Bai’ah to establish the Islamic state. Similarly all of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen first received the Bai’ah from the prominent leadership within society (Bai’atul-in’iqad) before receiving the Bai’atul-Taa’ah (pledge of obedience). For example during the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) two hundred men gathered from the leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajireen at the building of Banu Sa’adah. They were the ones who first gave the contractual Bai’ah (Bai’atul-in’iqad) which then resulted in the rest of the Muslims giving their Bai’ah of obedience (Bai’atul-Ta’a) at the Mosque of the Prophet (saw).
Therefore those who give the initial Bai’atul-in’iqad represent the leadership in the society, whose opinion reflects the opinion of the rest of society. They are known as the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd (the people who loosen and tie the knots of leadership). As a result the appointment of a Khaleefah cannot be completed unless he has received the Bai’ah from the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd. Ibn Hajar (in Fath al-Bari): “Al-Nawawi and others said: they unanimously agreed that the Khilafah is appointed by succession (al-istkhlaf), and its appointment is to be by a the contract of Ahlul Halli wal Aqd for a person, such that there is no succession for other than him,”. Those who represent this strata of society are determined by the rational assessment of where the leadership actually resides in the society. They are those who, if they provide support to a man, give him the physical capability and legitimacy in the eyes of the people to impose law and order, and thus the comprehensive application of the systems of Islam.
In the normal situation where the Khilafah exists, and one Khaleefah is replaced by another, the Ummah has the right to be consulted. Umar bin Al Khattab (ra) stated, “So if anyone gives the Bai’ah to somebody (to become Khaleefah) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance…” (Bukhari). However in the current situation where the Ummah has been without the Khilafah for over ninety years then the right for consultation of the Ummah has passed, rather if a Bai’ah is given to a Muslim who can establish the sovereignty for the Shariah in a land then the allegiance is due from the rest of the Ummah. This still requires the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd to give Bai’atul-in’iqad, but this is restricted to a real whole society like Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt. If those of the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd give Bai’ah from that society then the rest of the Ummah now become obliged to give the Bai’ah too, whether living in Indonesia or Morocco. This assumes that the initial society where the Bai’ah has been obtained from has the necessary requisites to provide internal and external security.
Necessity for Security.
The Khaleefah implements laws upon a people who reside within the Khilafah’s authority. The ability to implement laws necessitates the capability to enforce those laws.
During the leadership of the Prophet (saw) in Medinah he (saw) appointed various people to the position of policemen who would enforce the command of the Prophet (saw) in society. Al-Bukhari narrated from Anas: “That Qays ibn Sa’d used to be in front of the Prophet (saw) in the position of the policeman towards the amir”.
This security in Medinah allowed the Prophet (saw) to receive delegations from various tribes, openly give the Khutba on Jummah, give open lessons on a weekly basis for both men and women, accept disputants, issue verdicts, organise the armies, administer state funds, appoint and hold to account governors and generally be accessible to the citizens of the Islamic state. Similarly the Prophet (saw) appointed muhtasiboon (market judges) who would impose penalties on those who cheated in the market place. He (saw) appointed Sa’id ibn Al-As as amuhtasib in the markets of Makkah after its conquest, as reported in the Tabaqaat of ibn Sa’d and in Al-Istiab of Ibn ‘Abd al- Barr.
This capacity to maintain internal security is necessary for the Khaleefah to practically implement the Shariah and to be known to the people (so that they know who they’ve given Bai’ah to and thus hold him to account.)
In addition the Khilafah must be able to maintain its external security. This means having a known territory that the Khaleefah has direct jurisdiction (imara) over. The Khilafah cannot be occupied by, nor can it be a vessel for, a foreign power. There are numerous evidences for the obligation to maintain security from foreign domination, Allah swt states:

وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا

“Allah will never allow the non-believers to have a way (sabil) over the believers” [An-Nisaa: 141]
Indeed, the ability to maintain the security for the Khilafah is a pre-requisite condition for its initial establishment. The seerah of Ibn Kathir, Ayoon al-Athar and other sources mention that the Prophet (saw) entered into discussions with Banu Shayban bin Tha’labah to protect his (saw) dawah with the tribal leaders fully aware that this implication would be a support to establish the Prophet (saw) as a leader over them in a state. Abu Bakr (ra) questioned them on their military capacity in order to determine whether they held the capacity to provide security to the future Islamic State: Abu Bakr asked them, “What is your number?”. They said, “We are one thousand in number; and one thousand is not a little figure.” “What about your defense?” asked Abu Bakr. “We always struggle (and defend ourselves), for every nation is bound to keep on struggling.” Then Abu Bakr asked, “What about (the result of) the battle between you and your enemies?” Mafruq said, “When we fight, we are in one of our furies and the battle is enraged. We take care of the horses, used in the battle, more than our children; and prefer weapons over the milk-animals. So far as the victory is concerned, it is from Allah. Sometimes we gain victory, sometimes they gain victory
After it was determined they where of the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd the Prophet (saw) presented himself and the message of Islam. Banu Shayban bin Tha’labah offered to provide support against the Arabs but not against the Persians. The Prophet (saw) responded to this conditional support by saying:
“I did not receive a bad response from you, you were truthful, but whoever give the support for the Deen of Allah will protect it from all sides”
The Prophet (saw) therefore didn’t allow an Islamic State to be established that was dependent upon other powers. Nor did he allow it to be established such that its borders were unstable and the land could easily be overcome.
When the Prophet (saw) established the Islamic State through the nusrah (material support) of Bani Khazraj and Bani Aws of Yathrib, the frontiers of the Islamic State were defined, they had the capacity to maintain the integrity of the State and the security to enforce and implement the Shariah.
Therefore, just as the Sunnah has defined, the Khilafah must be predicated on a land whose security are in the hands of the Muslims, who can maintain the Khilafah’s territorial integrity, and have the capacity to implement theShariah comprehensively.
The Khilafah represents one of the highest obligations in Islam, however the mere claim of Khilafah doesn’t make it so. Rather the Khilafah requires the necessary shar’i conditions to be in place in order for it to be declared a legitimate Khilafah whose Khaleefah is owed Bai’atul-Taa’ah from the Ummah.
These conditions for a legitimate Khaleefah can be summarised as follows:
1. He must receive the Bai’ah.
2. He must be contracted to rule by Islam only.
3. He must fulfill the necessary personal conditions such as; male, free, sane, mature, just, capable and Muslim.
4. He must receive the Bai’ah from the Ahlul Halli Wal Aqd (the influential faction) in a particular locality/society.
5. He must have the ability to enforce internal security in order to implement the Shariah as a whole.
6. The land must have external security in the hands of the Muslims alone, such that the Khilafah has the capacity to maintain its borders.