Monday, April 21, 2014

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 14

Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 





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



To access part 13 click here




Alongside the Islamic, nationalistic and patriotic movements, communist movements were established and they were established upon the basis of matter. These movements followed the communist movements in Russia and were directed by them. Their method was destruction and subversion or sabotage. Its objective, other than establishing communism in the country, is to disrupt the western colonialism in favour of the eastern bloc by describing those who are in charge of the lands as agents of colonialism. It is not the place here to examine communism being established upon materialism or matter however I will briefly state that communism was established upon the Aqueedah of materialism i.e. that there is no deity (creator) and that life is matter. This means that they believed that matter is eternal and that all that exists has come into being by way of material evolution. This includes the existence of the human and other creatures which were in their view the result of the evolution of matter and its transforming from one condition or state to another better one. Therefore for them matter is the basis of everything and the ‘Aql (mind) is merely one condition from amongst the conditions of the matter and indeed it represents the highest evolution of matter. The systems of the human in life and his laws are only a result of matter. This then is the meaning of the statement that communism is established upon the thought of matter.

This is in regards to its thought. As for its method then they say that everything in existence is established upon contradictions and in order to speed up the evolutionary process it is necessary to stir up the contradictions in life. As such these movements were established upon a thought and a method (Fikrah and Tareeqah) regardless of the validity or falsehood of this thought. Nevertheless we are able to state that they did put down a Fikrah and a Tareeqah. However this thought of theirs was not clearly defined and their method was also not clear. Despite this we do not deny the presence of an ideological thought amongst them and a method that was from the same type of the thought, and that these movements possessed a defined aim which was the establishment of communism within the land. However this aim was a long-term objective and it was preceded by generating disruption against the western colonialism that was present in the Islamic world. Upon this we say that the objective was not evidently clear because it proceeded in accordance to the wishes of Russia and according to its direction and instruction and not in accordance to what the method of the ideology necessitates and what it dictates in terms of thoughts and actions. Destruction and subversion were prominent amongst their actions in addition to generating antagonism and hatred between the workers and their bosses and between the farmers and the land owners. They were very successful in regards to this point specifically and I mean the generation of hostility and hatred between the people in their relationships. They were able on many occasions to mobilise the Ummah against the western thoughts and interests although it was in service to Russia and not an implementation of its thought and its method. As such we able to decisively state that those who were responsible for these movements did not have any feelings or sentiments towards this Ummah because they had become agents to Russia proceeding according to her orders and not according to what the thought and method dictated.

For this reason the Ummah did not respond to these movements and no effect was left that needs to be mentioned with the exception of what we have already indicated. Their failure was a natural matter and that is for the following reasons:

1) That went against the Fitrah (inherent nature) of the human: This is because the human has been created upon elements of nature that are present within him and dealing a decisive blow against these elements is impossible because they are part of his make-up and composition. The effort to repress or suppress it to remove it will only lead to the misery of the human. And it is noted that this Aqueedah does not accept the existence of the matters that make up the nature of the human. Rather they consider the elements of this nature as matters that are acquired from the society that the human being lives in. So sanctification and religiosity is not part of the nature of the human but rather it is an attribute that is acquired or an idea that he has been indoctrinated with when he was young. Therefore they do not accept its existence and they consider the existence and worship of a deity to be an invention of the mind. This is in relation to sanctification but the matter did not end with that but rather extended to other instincts that are naturally present within the human like the instinct related to ownership or said differently the manifestation of ownership and possession within the survival instinct. They also say that the love or desire to possess or own is not from the nature but rather this has been dictated to him by the life of people in the capitalist society and that they thoughts are indoctrinated in the individual from his early days and as a result of that they have taken a form as if they are from the Fitrah (inherent nature). This is despite this statement representing a negation of the true reality and a clear and obvious mistake for all to see. So the child is not indoctrinated with any thought and has not yet acquired any information. We find that he screams when you try to take something from his possession and he attempts to take possession of everything that catches his attention. Did none of them ever witness their son or brother when they were at this age and how they screamed if we were to remove him from the breast of his mother or milk bottle? Despite all of this they insist that they are acquired thoughts in a display of pure arrogance from them. 

2) Because contradicts the Aqueedah of Islaam: In other words it contradicted the Aqueedah of the Ummah and for this reason these political parties were not able to be open about their Aqueedah. Indeed most of the time and if not always they did not address the people with what they held inside of them. They spoke most about socialism and its economic solutions. They targeted the vulnerability of the youth and some of the people by declaring their animosity to the west which was the number one enemy of the people and they would address some of the Russian positions which was in opposition to the west and competing with it to dominate over the lands. As for openly declaring their atheism and their hostility towards Islaam then this was a matter that they did not dare to do. In fact they did more than that when they made the claim that they respected the religions and accept Islaam. And it was from among the strangest of matters that the communist party in Sudan used to begin their gatherings with the recitation of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem. In this state of affairs it was only natural that these movements would fail.

3) Their adoption of the nationalistic issues: These political parties were not branches of one single political party or communist movement but rather the nationalistic description and the problems facing the region they appeared in was the most prominent characterization or description for every political party. The communist party in Lebanon had an independent leadership as did Syria and in every region from the Islamic lands the communist party had its specific leadership and there was no political relationship between one communist party and another. Each of these parties adopted the national problems and began to work upon their premise and this set up and status quo would obviously not provide it with any influence as a communist party within the Islamic world. 

For this reason the presence and existence of communist movements within the Islamic world were a knot that added to the other knots that the society suffered from and which the correct party structure or bloc would suffer from once it came into existence.

To access part 14 click here

Q&A: Regarding Hadith- "Whoever Prevented it then we will take it plus half of his wealth"






Bismillahi Al-Rahman AlRaheem

The Answer to the Question
Regarding the Hadeeth: «.... وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ» 
“….Whoever prevented it then we will take it plus half of his wealth”

To: Duaa AlFurqan

(Translated)


Question:
Our Dear Ameer, Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh, may Allah give victory through you. It is mentioned in the book, The Funds in the Khilafah State (Al-Amwal), on the subject of fines, page 104 (English edition), “Similarly, a fine is taken from the abstainer of paying Zakat half of his wealth as chastisement above the Zakat obliged upon him, due to the Prophet (saw) saying:
«وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فأنا آخذها وشطر ماله»

“….Whoever prevented it then I will take it plus half of his wealth” narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad).
It appears from what is stated that the adopted opinion is the permissibility of imposing fine on the abstainer of paying Zakat as a chastising punishment “Ta’ziria”, despite many differences between the scholars on its legitimacy, but what I would like clarification on is:
1. The Hadeeth that is inferred in full, in terms of the chain of transmission (sanad) and the text (matn), since I have searched for it and I did not find except the Hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather said:

«فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ. فِي كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ ابْنَةُ لَبُونٍ. لَا تُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا. مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا لَا يَحِلُّ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ».

“For pasturing camels, every forty, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half (Shatra) of his camels, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”. Narrated by Ahmad.

And in Sunan Abu Dawood: Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«فِي كُلِّ سَائِمَةِ إِبِلٍ فِي أَرْبَعِينَ بِنْتُ لَبُونٍ، وَلَا يُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا - قَالَ ابْنُ الْعَلَاءِ مُؤْتَجِرًا بِهَا – فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ، عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، لَيْسَ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ»

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: For every forty pasturing camels, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half (Shatra) of his wealth, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

As for the Hadeeth with the wording,

"فأنا آخذها وشطر ماله" “

I will take it plus half of his wealth”, I have not found it.

2. What is meant by half (Shatra) of his wealth? Is it half of his whole wealth? Or is it half of his wealth which he prevented its Zakat? Or is it half of the value of Zakat that he was obliged to pay on his wealth? Or is it based on some opinion that his wealth is split into two halves and the Zakat collector selects the best half and takes it for Sadaqah as penalty for preventing it? Baraka Allahu Bika and Feeka wa Jazzak Allahu Khairan.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,

As for the Hadeeth you mentioned

«فإنا آخذوها وشطر ماله»

“then we will take it plus half of his wealth”:

1. Abu Dawood reported from Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«فِي كُلِّ سَائِمَةِ إِبِلٍ فِي أَرْبَعِينَ بِنْتُ لَبُونٍ، وَلَا يُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا - قَالَ ابْنُ الْعَلَاءِ مُؤْتَجِرًا بِهَا - فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ، عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، لَيْسَ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ»

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: For every forty pasturing camels, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half of his wealth, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

2. It was also reported by Ahmad and An-Nisaa’i, and the wording is of Ahmad, from Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say,

«فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ. فِي كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ ابْنَةُ لَبُونٍ. لَا تُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا. مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا لَا يَحِلُّ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ».

“For pasturing camels, every forty, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half of his camels, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

• The Fuqahaa’ (Islamic jurists) differed in the understanding of this Hadeeth:

Some of them say on the pretext of abrogation, so nothing else to be taken but the Zakat, and some say that the word “Shat’ra" meaning half in the narration is not so, rather it is "Shott’ira", in a passive tense, meaning his wealth is split into halves and the Zakat collector selects any of the two halves to take. While some of them say that the narrator had deluded, for it is "فإنا آخذوها من شطر ماله" “then we will take it from half of his wealth” or "من شطر إبله" “from half of his camels”…

• My most preponderant view in this matter is the following:

A. As for the issue of passive voice (al-maj’houl), the issue of the illusion (al-wahm), and the issue of abrogation (an-naskh); I rule out all of these:

Thus passive voice is ruled out because the word "Shat’ra" in all the considered Hadeeth narrations is mentioned without the passive voice...

The issue of illusion, as well is unlikely, because the narration is not,"فإنا آخذوها منه شطر ماله" “Fa Inna Akhithooha Minhu Shat’ra Malihi” to say that the letter "H" in the word "Minhu" is an illusion from the narrator. Even then, the illusion here cannot be as well, because it is ruled out that the narrator who knows Arabic to say “Minhu Shat’ra Malihi” How then if "Minhu" is followed by the letter "Wa", to say that he deluded and he said “Minhu Wa Shat’ra” instead of "“Min Shat’ra "? This is unlikely....

This is with regards to passive voice and illusion. As for the issue of abrogation, it is also unlikely because the date is unknown, their evidence to support abrogation is not clear, and because the general evidences of Zakat do not abrogate the specific evidence of Zakat concerning the punishment of the abstainer from giving Zakat...

B. The most preponderant to me is that the first Hadeeth:«فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ» “then we shall take it plus half of his wealth” stating that the Zakat is taken by force from the Zakat abstainer, and is fined half of his wealth. It is also possible to understand from it, half of all his wealth, i.e. the wealth that is due for Zakat and other funds that have not yet reached the amount of Zakat of Gold, silver, cattle, camels, sheep, wheat, barley, dates, raisins, and trade goods.

C. In the other Hadeeth:«فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ» “then we shall take it plus half of his camels” came after mentioning Zakat of camels «فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ...» “In every pasturing camels...”. It means that the word “Shat’ra” is added to the camel owned by him, so it is taken from him Zakat of the camel and half the camel. More clearly, if he has forty pasturing camels, then one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is taken from him as Zakat, then another fine is taken from him which is half of the forty camels.

D. Hence, the second Hadeeth is specifying the earlier Hadeeth. That is, he is not fined half of all his wealth, but half the wealth that is due for Zakat.

E. As for the meaning of the word “Shat’ra” is it half or part; it is mentioned in the dictionary “Al-Muheet” (Shat’ra: half a thing and part of it). Thus this is left to the adoption of the Khalifah regarding the abstainer of giving the Zakat: either to take from him the Zakat and half of his wealth that is due for Zakat, or to take the Zakat and part of his wealth that is due for Zakat, as to fine him for preventing Zakat... Although I am inclined to the half, because it is fine and the fine carries the meaning of punishment and severity... and Allah knows best and He is All-Wise.

For your information we have mentioned this topic in the evidences for imposing fines, which means taking half of the wealth is fine, as stated in the book of “Al-Amwal” (The Funds in the Islamic State), and the book of “Nidham ul-Uqoobat” (The Penal Code).

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

17 Jumada II 1435 AH
17/04/2014 CE



Link to  the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook:

Monday, April 14, 2014

Q&A: Ruling related to Covering the feet & Statement of Sultan of Brunie on implementing Shari'a


Bismillahi Al-Rahman AlRaheem

Answers to the Questions:
1. Ruling related to Covering the Feet
2. Statement of Sultan of Brunei that He Intends to Implement the Shariah
To Ahmad Uais



Question: 
Asalamu Alaikum our honourable Sheikh, Please when you have time, could you answer my questions? Barak Allah feek.
First Question: From the book An-Nitham Al-Ijtima’i fil Islam [The Social System in Islam]
1. It is mentioned in the book on page 50 (English version)… “And there is no need to cover the feet since they are already covered”.
Does this statement mean that it is not an obligation to wear something that covers the Awra(feet) underneath the public life dress (Jilbab)?
2. On page 50 in the same book (English version)… “Because the loose and draping dress down to the feet is an obligation”.
The word “to” does it not indicate that the feet are not included to be covered by the Jilbab? From the linguistic sense, otherwise the previous paragraph confirms the obligation for it to be covered; for the precision of the language, isn’t it better to say;” to drape below the feet”?
Second Question: There are news reports on the Facebook that the Sultan of Brunei stated that he intends to implement Shariah and that he is making alterations in the constitution for this purpose.
What is the truth of this matter? May Allah Bless you our Ameer.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu

First: Question regarding the feet.

1. The first statement in your question:

”And there is no need to cover the feet since they are already covered”.

Yes, it means that there is no need for the woman to wear something that will cover her feet underneath the public life dress, if the dress is draping to the floor by a hand span or an arm span and not more as what was mentioned in the whole paragraph which you copied the first statement from in your question.

2. The second statement in your question: “Because the loose and draping dress down to the feet is an obligation”. It means if the feet were covered by socks or something similar, then it is sufficient that the public life dress reaches the feet without draping down below the feet. By this, the draping mentioned in the verse is achieved. This is also clear from the whole paragraph that you copied your statement from in your question.

3. In order to make the matter clearer, I will repeat to you the Answer to the previous question:

(a. In the past, women and specially the Bedouins used to walk barefoot or wore slippers or similar footwear that did not fully cover the feet; women’s feet were exposed except when they wore dresses that drape down to the floor, to cover the feet when they walked.

When the Prophet (saw) prohibited draping the dress out of pride, Umm Salama (ra) concluded that if women do not drape their dresses (Jilbab) to the floor their feet will show when they walk, because they walked barefoot or wearing slippers that do not cover their feet fully. She asked the Prophet (saw): “What should women do regarding the draping of their dresses?” this is because their Jilbabs and Abayas draped to the floor to cover their feet.

The Prophet (saw) allowed the women to lengthen their dresses by a hand span or an arm span from the feet so that their feet are covered when they walk; which is possible as long as the dress (Jilbab) drapes down to the floor.

The subject was (the draping of the dress (Jilbab) to cover the feet) i.e. the question was to cover the feet, in other words draping the Jilbab on the floor below the feet was for the purpose of covering the feet.

The I’la (divine reason) in draping of the dress to the floor with the extra length is to cover the feet. The rule revolves with the I’la in its presence or absence. If the feet are covered, then the dress is not draped to the floor, it is sufficient to achieve the meaning of Idraa’ i.e. draping which is mentioned in the verse:

(يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ)

“... to bring down (drape) over themselves[part] of their outer garments” [Al-Ahzab: 59]

i.e. to drape the dress to cover the feet.

b. As for the place from which the dress should be lengthened that Umm Salama inquired about to add a hand span or an arm span to: the subject was the draping of the dress.

The issue that Umm Salama (ra) was inquiring about was” the draping of the dress (Jilbab) to the floor”. 

As she realised if the dress (Jilbab) does not drape to the floor below the feet the women’s feet will be exposed when they walk. This is true, if the dress is not draping to the floor, the feet will show during walking if the women are barefoot or wearing footwear that does not fully cover the feet.

So the Prophet (saw) gave her permission to drape the dress (Jilbab) a hand span down to the floor. In the hadeeth to drape a hand span to the floor, The word “drape” means to the floor; indicating that the hand span drapes to the floor i.e. below the feet.

I repeat this is for the purpose of covering the feet during walking. If the feet of the woman are covered with socks or something similar, it is sufficient for the Jilbab to reach the heels as long as the rest of the feet are covered) end.

Second: The Subject of Brunei:

Yes, the news reported in your question is accurate.

Implementing the rules of Islam is not by establishing fixed borders. It should be a correct implementation by a State that adopts the whole of Islam as a system, State, and society. It implements Islam internally and externally and propagates it to the world by Dawah and Jihad and its security is by the hands of the Muslims and is free from the Kuffar and the colonial influence.

Brunei is missing the above, even the implementation of Hudood that they declared will be on Muslims only, non-Muslims who live on its land will be excluded. It is well known that Brunei is widely open for the Kuffar. Its security is not in its hands, it is controlled by the West especially by Britain. This is why the matter is not more than a provision of a vent to the feelings of Muslims out there.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

12 Jumada II 1435 AH 
12 April 2014 CE

Link to the answer from the ameer's facebook page

Q&A: Regarding Ijtihad in Texts




Bismillahi Al-Rahman AlRaheem

The Answer to the Question:
Regarding Ijtihad in Texts with Definite Meanings
To: Alabid-lilah
(Translated)


Question:
In the book, System of Islam, (Nitham Al- Islam) the following is mentioned,
“Therefore the higher objectives to safeguard society were not from man but they are commands and prohibitions from Allah and are fixed and do change or evolve. To safeguard humankind, the mind, human dignity, human soul, personal ownership, the Deen, security, and the State are fixed higher objectives to safeguard society and are not changed or evolved.”
The question is:
Isn’t it the case that Ijtihad in the constitution will change some text, yet the text above mentions that the text will not change or evolve?
Please elaborate this.
Barak Allah feek and May He (swt) assist you.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu

Dear brother, Ijtihad is not applicable to the texts which are definite and definite in meaning, i.e. the verses of the Qura’n and Hadeeth Mutawatir, they are definite in meaning according to the study of the language and section of the Book and the Sunnah.

Ijtihad is applicable to the indefinite texts, whether they are definite texts or indefinite texts.
As long as the meaning is indefinite the Ijtihad applies, according to what is known in the sciences of Usul and Fiqh.

What is mentioned in the book as higher objectives that must safeguard the Islamic society, they are definite texts with definite meanings; its hukum (ruling) does not change by Ijtihad because Ijtihad is not applicable here; it is not applicable to definite text.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

7 Jumada Al-Akhira 1435 AH
7 April 2014 CE


Link to  the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook:

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Message to the people of Syria from Pakistan regarding it's Blessed Revo...

Message to the people of Syria from Pakistan regarding it's Blessed Revolution from Saad Jagranvi Chairman of the Central Contact Committee Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan 

Jumada II 1435 AH - April 2014 CE







Daily motion link

Q&A: Disposing of Riba [Interest] Money

Question:
Our eminent Ameer, may Allah preserve him and forgive his sins,
Assalamu Alaykum wa Ramatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Someone opened an interest-based bank account in one of the nowadays existing (usurious) banks and later realized that riba [interest] was added to his account. We know that Allah سبحانه وتعالى says in the explicit part of His Revelation:
وَإِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ رُءُوسُ أَمْوَالِكُمْ لَا تَظْلِمُونَ وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ
"But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged."
(Al-Baqarah: 279)
There are contemporary Sheikhs and Scholars who authorize taking this money and not leaving it to the bank, under the pretext of not helping the bank in committing Haram and not committing another Haram by leaving the interest to the Bank.
The question is: What to do with the money that has been added to his capital? Is it permissible for him to take the interest-accrued money (riba money) and spend it on the poor or to repay his debts with it? Will he be rewarded for spending this money on the poor? Please advise us, Barakallahu Feekum, may He forgive your sins.
From Ibrahim Abu Fathi

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Before answering your question of "what to do with the interest money", it is obligatory upon the one dealing with interest with the bank to immediately terminate his usurious (riba) transaction. He has to repent to Allah subahanahu wa taa'ala with sincere repentance, and Allah Almighty says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا تُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ تَوْبَةً نَصُوحًا
"Oh you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance."
(At-Tahrim: 8)
And He سبحانه وتعالى says:
إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَاعْتَصَمُوا بِاللَّهِ وَأَخْلَصُوا دِينَهُمْ لِلَّهِ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَسَوْفَ يُؤْتِ اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
"Except for those who repent, correct themselves, hold fast to Allah, and are sincere in their religion for Allah, for those will be with the believers. And Allah is going to give the believers a great reward."
(An-Nisa: 146)
At-Tirmidhi reports from Anas that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«كُلُّ ابْنِ آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ»
"Every son of Adam makes mistakes. The best among those who make mistakes are the ones showing repentance."
For it to be true repentance, and for Allah سبحانه وتعالى to forgive the sin of the one seeking repentance, it is incumbent upon the one seeking repentance to leave the sin, and to regret having committed it in the past, and to intend with strongest determination not to return to the like of it. In case the sin is related to another person's right, then it is obligatory to return the right to its owners or to achieve exemption from them. If he has money that he took from them through theft or coercion, then he will have to return the money to its owners, as to rid himself of the malignant gain from a Shar'i perspective. Gaining money in a Haram manner carries an adverse punishment. Ahmad reported from Abdullah Bin Masood, who said: "The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«...وَلَا يَكْسِبُ عَبْدٌ مَالًا مِنْ حَرَامٍ... إِلَّا كَانَ زَادَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ»
"No servant gains money in a Haram manner...except that it drives him towards the fire."
And At-Tirmidhi reported from Ka'ab Bin 'Ujrah that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«يَا كَعْبَ بْنَ عُجْرَةَ، إِنَّهُ لَا يَرْبُو لَحْمٌ نَبَتَ مِنْ سُحْتٍ إِلَّا كَانَتِ النَّارُ أَوْلَى بِهِ»
"Oh Ka'ab Bin 'Ujrah, no meat is collected that has been grown from Haram, except that the fire has more right over it."
As for the bank's interest on his money and how to get rid of it, the answer is as follows:
1. If he tells the bank "I want my capital only" and the bank's regulations allow him to take his capital solely, then he shall take his capital.
2. But if the bank's regulations do not allow so, rather they oblige him to take the interest along with his capital in one pay or otherwise they will not give him his capital, in this case he takes his capital along with the riba (interest) and gets rid of the latter. He puts it in charitable places stealthily, without showing that he is giving it in charity, because it is Haram money. Therefore it is incumbent upon him to get rid of it. He sends it to a mosque for example, without letting anybody know, or to a poor family without letting them know who the sender is, or anything similar to this. It has to be done in a way that does not manifest him giving charity or anything similar.
3. As to the reward for spending this money, then there is no reward for giving Haram money. Spending this money in charity does not amount to Sadaqah, because it is not Halal money that he owns. But he will be rewarded for leaving the Haram, Insha'Allah, i.e. cancelling his usurious transaction with the bank and getting rid of the Haram money. Allah Almighty accepts repentance from his servants and does not waste the reward of him who did a good deed.
Your Brother
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
28 Jumada I1435 AH
29/03/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/Ata.abualrashtah/photos/a.154439224724163.1073741827.154433208058098/277398905761527/?type=1

Q&A: Polio Vaccinations and Monopoly

Question:
Assalamu alaikum, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى protect you and the Ummah and give victory to the Ummah through you. Please I have two questions and prayed may Allah make it easy for you.
1. What is your view according to Islam concerning polio vaccination that the western worlds and America are claiming to help some third world countries with free-of-charge?
2. Is it allowed according to Shariah to buy farm produce e.g. beans, during period of harvest when they are in surplus in order to store them until the period when the supply is meager and to sell at a profitable or higher price? Jazzak Allahu Khayran
Yusuf Adamu, Abuja, Nigeria.

Answer:
Wa Alaikumu as-Salaam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu
First: Vaccination is a medicine, to seek medicine is recommended not obligatory; the evidences for this are:
1. Narrated by Bukhari from Abu Huraira that he said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
»مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ دَاءً إِلَّا أَنْزَلَ لَهُ شِفَاءً«
"AIIah has not sent down a disease except that He also sent down its cure."
Muslim narrated from Jabir Ibn Abdullah from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:
»لِكُلِّ دَاءٍ دَوَاءٌ، فَإِذَا أُصِيبَ دَوَاءُ الدَّاءِ بَرَأَ بِإِذْنِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ«
"Every illness has a cure, and when the proper cure is applied to the disease, it ends it, by the permission of Allah Azza wa Jal."
Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad from Abdullah Ibn Mas'ood:
»مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ دَاءً، إِلَّا قَدْ أَنْزَلَ لَهُ شِفَاءً، عَلِمَهُ مَنْ عَلِمَهُ، وَجَهِلَهُ مَنْ جَهِلَهُ«
"AIIah has not sent down a disease except that He also sent down its cure; whoever knows it (the cure), knows it, and whoever is unaware of it (the cure), he is unaware of it."
These Ahadith contain instructions; for every disease, there is medicine that cures it; this is an encouragement to seek medicine that leads to the cure of disease by the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى; it is an instruction and not an obligation.
2. Ahmad narrated from Anas that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
»إِنَّ اللَّهَ حَيْثُ خَلَقَ الدَّاءَ، خَلَقَ الدَّوَاءَ، فَتَدَاوَوْا«
"There is no disease that Allah has created except that He also has created its remedy, so seek medicine."
Abu Dawoud narrated from Usama Ibn Shareek who said; 'I approached the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his companions, they appeared as if they had birds sitting on their heads, I extended my greetings and sat down, then many Bedouins came from here and there and asked: 'O Messenger of AIIah, should we seek medicine?' He said:
»تَدَاوَوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَمْ يَضَعْ دَاءً إِلَّا وَضَعَ لَهُ دَوَاءً، غَيْرَ دَاءٍ وَاحِدٍ الْهَرَمُ» أي "إلا الموت"
"Yes, O slaves of AIIah, seek medicine, for AIIah has not created a disease except that he has also created its cure, except for one illness.' They said, 'And what is that?' He said, 'Al-Haram' [death]" I.e. except for death.
In the first hadeeth, he صلى الله عليه وسلم commanded to seek medicine, and in this hadeeth his answer to the Bedouins was to seek medicine for Allah did not send a disease except that He sends the cure. The speech in both Ahadith came in the command form that means a general order and not an obligation; unless the subject is regarding a definite issue. The definite command requires a Qareena (an indication) to its presence. In both Ahadith, there is not a Qareena present that indicates the obligation. In addition, there has been narrations of Ahadith that indicates the permissibility of not seeking medicine, which negates the indication of the obligation from both hadeeth.
Muslim narrated from Imran Ibn Haseen that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
»يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ مِنْ أُمَّتِي سَبْعُونَ أَلْفًا بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ»، قَالُوا: وَمَنْ هُمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ؟ قَالَ: «هُمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَكْتَوُونَ وَلَا يَسْتَرْقُونَ، وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ«
"Seventy thousand from my Ummah shall enter Jannah without any reckoning" They said "who are they O Allah's Messenger?" He said: "They are the ones who do not get themselves branded (cauterized) nor they treat themselves with Ruqqya, and they trust in Allah."
Ruqqya and cauterization is a form of medicine.
Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: "This black woman came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said: "I have (epileptic) seizures, and I get exposed, so supplicate to Allah for me." He صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
»إِنْ شِئْتِ صَبَرْتِ وَلَكِ الجَنَّةُ، وَإِنْ شِئْتِ دَعَوْتُ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُعَافِيَكِ» فَقَالَتْ: أَصْبِرُ، فَقَالَتْ: إِنِّي أَتَكَشَّفُ، فَادْعُ اللَّهَ لِي أَنْ لاَ أَتَكَشَّفَ، »فَدَعَا لَهَا... «
"If you wish, be patient and you will attain Jannah; or if you wish, I will ask Allah to cure you."
She replied, "I will be patient! But my body gets exposed (because of the fall), so supplicate to Allah for me that I do not become exposed." and he sallalahu alaihi wa sallam made supplication for her."
These two hadeeths indicate the permissibility of not seeking medication.
This explains all of the issue:
"فتداووا"، "تداووا", to "seek medicine" is not an obligation, therefore it is either permissible or recommended. The extent of encouragement by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to seek medication makes the command of seeking medicine that is mentioned in the hadeeth recommended. Therefore the ruling on vaccination is that it is recommended, because vaccination is a medicine and to seek the cure is recommended, not obligatory, and it is permissible to seek cure from a non-Muslim Doctor, whether it was with payment or a an unpaid help... so whoever wanted to use vaccination, it is permissible.
There is also a matter I would like to remind about, that the assistance of the Kaffir Colonialists to the Muslim lands, whether it was for medication or otherwise, especially what they call free aid, these aids are usually used as a platforms for entering the hegemony of the Kaffir colonialists and their influence in the lands, and for the looting of its wealth and riches, the Capitalist States do not give free aid without taking anything in return, for they do not have Spiritual Values through which they help the needy, but their values are materialistic to reap through their aids malicious interests... so let the Muslims beware of this.
Secondly: Monopoly is absolutely forbidden in Islam, its Shar'i ruling is that it is Haram because of its explicit prohibition mentioned in the explicit Hadith. It was narrated by Muslim in his Sahih, that Sa'eed bin Al-Musayyeb said, that M'uammar bin Abdullah said, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: «لَا يَحْتَكِرُ إِلَّا خَاطِئٌ» "No one Monopolizes except a wrongdoer". The forbiddance in this Hadith is a decisive request for abstaining from the action, and vilifying the monopolist by describing him as a wrongdoer – and the wrongdoer is the sinner – and this is a Qareena (indication) indicating that this request (talab) for abstaining away from the action indicates decisiveness, and thus, this Hadeeth proves the prohibition of monopoly. The monopolist is he who collects goods in anticipation of its cost to increase in the market, whether collecting it from buying, or from the yields of his vast lands, the type of yields he personally owns, or for the scarcity of its cultivation, so he collects them by monopolizing them to sell them at a higher cost, making it difficult for the people of the country to purchase it. In this respect, i.e. increasing the cost to the people is forbidden (Haram), as per what has been narrated by Ma'qal bin Yasar who said: the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«مَنْ دَخَلَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ أَسْعَارِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لِيُغْلِيَهُ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَإِنَّ حَقًّا عَلَى اللهِ أَنْ يُقْعِدَهُ بِعُظْمٍ مِنَ النَّارِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ»
"Whoever strives to increase the cost (of products) for Muslims, Allah, the Exalted, will seat him in the center of the Fire on the Day of Resurrection."
Therefore, hoarding is forbidden, and thus, it is not permissible to buy the agricultural products at a lower price upon its availability in the market, then storing it until its availability in the market becomes less or non-existent, then offering it for sale at a higher price, because this is the reality of monopoly, and it is forbidden as we have showed above.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
02 Jumada II 1435 AH
02/04/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook:

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

The role of the Masjid In the West- Br. Abu Luqman

The Masjid is not like any other building, it is a House of Allah (SWT). Underneath the marbled bricks and the mosaic tiled walls there lies a mission statement. At the peak of the glossy minarets soaring towards the sky there lies echoes of a call, this is it's soul. If the Masjid could speak about our communities and the company it keeps, what would it say? The Masjid would never speak out of place from what has been revealed in the Quran and Sunnah. Unfortunately, some have spoken at odds with the very soul of the Masjid. The Masjid is asking for something more than it's expansion and more than just it's beautification. You are invited to learn what the role of the Masjid should be, based on the life of our beloved Prophet (saw).


"And who are more unjust than those who forbid that Allah's Name be mentioned in Allah's Masjids and strive for their ruin It was not fitting that such should themselves enter them (Allah's Masjids) except in fear" Sura Baqara (2:114 TMQ)

In the talk Br. Abu Luqman speaks on discovering the true voice of the masjid and its role according to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).


The talk covers the following points:-

  • The role of the Prophet's Masjid as the heart of Muslim spiritual and community life
  • Should the Masjid have a view about the Middle East Uprisings? Is politics allowed in the Masjid?
  • Khutbas about honey and socks and Dua alone whilst under the onslaught of Western interventionism?
  • Providing platforms (including the Minbar) to Western politicians and censoring Muslims
  • Failing to account British wars while speaking harshly against the 'Muslim enemy within'
  • Understanding PVE funding of Masjids as part of the government's strategy and the Islamic perspective 
  • What we can do to help the Masjid under the intense pressure and scrutiny they face from the Government Category?