Thursday, October 30, 2014

PALESTINE: Two State Solution is No Solution




The passing of a motion by British MPs, with 274 votes in favour to 12 against has caused a wave of excitement amongst some Muslim and pro-Palestinian supporters. With claims that this is recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination, or that the international community and Britain specifically is beginning to take some responsibility for the legacy it left behind in the Middle East. Demonstrated by the criticism levelled by MPs at Israel during the House of Commons debate, especially for its settlement policies
We need to question is this non-binding vote in which less than half of MP’s took part in, really the  “symbolic” day and a stepping stone towards Palestinian liberation?
Friends of Israel
The claim that Britain is at last taking some responsibility for the historic wrongs it had committed against the Palestinian people, is exaggerated. The political parties and their MPs who voted for the motion are supportive of Israel and will continue to do so. It is British foreign policy interests that created the state of Israel and continue to be the reason for its support.
This wasn’t a vote about how the UK arms Israel, with arms and commercial trade worth over 7.8 billion. It was a simply a motion to placate public opinion after Israel’s 2014 Gaza massacre. But more importantly it was designed to create an international public opinion to accept the two state solution.
It’s not the first time staunch allies of Israel have criticised its policies, the EU recently joined Washington in harshly criticising the announcement by Israel of 2,600 new housing units in a settlement across the green line. But yet the support offered to the Zionist entity by Washington and London continues unabated. The Zionist entity was conceived by the British government in the Balfour declaration and has been nurtured and strengthened by the West for decades, for their national interests. The attempts, to resume the ‘Road Map’ to a ‘two-state solution’ are in their national interests, but for Muslims in Palestine, such a road would be little more than institutionalising imprisonment and subjugation.
The two state solution – Rewarding Israeli aggression
The Mps who voted in favour of a Palestinian state, voted for the two state model.  Which means Israel gets to keep over 80 per cent of the land it stole, while the Palestinians have to make do with a de-militarised open prison that will be dependent on Israeli generosity.
The terms of the proposed two-state solution include:
  • Israel would recognise a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders with mutual territorial swap, which would leave the Palestinians with 22% of historic Palestine, allowing Israel to keep the remaining 78%
  • The Palestinian State would be demilitarised and all irregular militias disarmed including those who are defending themselves from occupation
  • There would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel
  • Israeli troops would remain along border crossings between the Palestinian state and its Arab neighbours, eventually to be replaced by international forces
  • This means a Palestinian state wouldn’t be able to prevent another military incursion, the last one in 2014 saw 1462 Palestinians civilians killed, of whom 495 were children and 253 women. Previous incursionsinclude 643 cumulative murders in 2006, 2158 murders in 2008 and 2332 murders in 2012.
A ‘two-state solution’ would institutionalise the imprisonment and oppression of Muslims. The two state solution is seen as Israel’s last chance to protect its illegal gains. Israel has significant challenges in the years ahead which threatens it. This is why former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is on record in saying the following “If the day comes when the two state solution collapses and we face a South African style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”
A Palestinian state created out of the remnants of pre 1967 is not a viable state, it will have no real resources, no real sovereignty and would be reliant on Israel for its survival. Just look at Israel’s repeated interventions in Gaza, a territory Israel claims it has left.  The recognition of Palestine as a state will legitimise the permanent recognition of Israel and continue the plight of the Palestinian people.
Barak Obama previously stated the  ‘two-state solution’ – is  conditional on  the Palestinians recognize Israel – also mentioning Israel had a right to maintain its own security but the future Palestine should be demilitarized.
“If we resume negotiations,” said Barack Obama, “then I think the Palestinians will have to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself.”
The only solution is the Islamic solution
The two state solution and its explicit recognition of “Israel” is considered by the west as an essential part of the solution. But we must realise the so-called two state solution is nothing but an incorrect solution that forsakes a major part of Palestine- which belongs to the Muslim Ummah- to the occupiers, recognising as a result the legitimacy of the occupying entity. This recognition from the Islamic viewpoint is a betrayal to Allah (swt), His Messenger (saw), and to the believers.
Giving up any land to foreign occupiers is prohibited from the texts of Islam. “Allah forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your deen, and drive you out of your homes, and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for support/protection. Such that do so are zaalimun (wrongdoers)” [TMQ Mumtahana:9]
Allah SWT demands the return of all occupied land to the authority of Islam and Muslims. There can be no compromise on this hukm despite the immense pressures from the enemies of Islam. It is a historic fact that the division of Muslim lands was only achievable after the destruction of the Khilafah. When Sultan Abdul Hamid II was asked to relinquish Palestine to the Zionists in return for a large sum of money, his response was:
“Please advise Dr Hertzel not to make any serious move in this mater. I cannot give up even one small patch of land in Palestine. It is not something that I own as a part of my personal estate. Palestine in fact belongs to the Muslim Nation as a whole. My people have fought with their blood and sweat to protect this land, let the Jews keep their millions and if the Khilafah is torn apart one day, then they can take Palestine without a price. To have the scalpel cut my body is less painful than to witness Palestine being detached from the Khilafah state and this is not going to happen”
Muslims today should unequivocally reject the two state solution for Palestine and campaign for the return for the Khilafah. It’s through articulating an intellectual case for Islam to be established in society that the confidence will return to the Ummah to bring about the Khilafah state, insha’Allah. Through a genuine political authority based on Islam can the Ummah’s problems be effectively solved like the occupation of Palestine.
Indeed the natural situation of Palestine is under the authority of the Khilafah with Bait ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) as its capital and it is only under the Khilafah that the both the Muslims and the Non-Muslims (Dhimmi) will receive permanent indemnity of their lives as they did in the past.
The Messenger of Allah PBUH said: “This matter (Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city (Constantinople), then to Bait-ul-Maqdis. So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).” [Narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Maseerah b. Jaleese]

Q&A: Riba Money after Khilafah

Question:
Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
A question from the book, The Institutions of State in the Khilafah (in Ruling and Administration) regarding money of Riba (usury) after the establishment of the Khalifah state of giving its capital to its owners ... Question: What we will do with the money of Riba? Is it permissible for the state to confiscate it and invest it? Is the cash that comes from the property of Riba as banknotes is haram in itself, or is it due to the action?
From Safeer Al-Khilafah



Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
1- The answer to your question, "What we will do with money of Riba", is found in the book The Funds in the Khilafah State (Al-Amwal), where it explained how the state deals with money acquired illegally such as illicit money (Mal al-Ghulul), Riba and gambling ... etc. It came under the chapter titled: "Illicit Money from the Rulers or Civil Servants, Money acquired Illegitimately and Fines" Pages 102-104 (English edition), as follows:
"Whatever has been mentioned of what is acquired by officials and civil servants using illegitimate methods is income for the Bait ul-Mal. Linked to this is every property acquired by individuals through any method of increasing wealth prohibited by Shar'a, as this is Haram acquisition which is not legally owned. So whoever acquires anything through Riba, it is Haram and not owned legally because Allah prohibited Riba and prohibited increasing wealth by Riba. Allah Ta'ala said:
الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا لَا يَقُومُونَ إِلَّا كَمَا يَقُومُ الَّذِي يَتَخَبَّطُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ مِنَ الْمَسِّ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا الْبَيْعُ مِثْلُ الرِّبَا وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا فَمَنْ جَاءَهُ مَوْعِظَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِ فَانْتَهَى فَلَهُ مَا سَلَفَ وَأَمْرُهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ عَادَ فَأُولَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ
"Those who eat riba will not stand save like those whom Shaitan struck with his touch. That is because they say: Verily trade is like riba. Whereas Allah permitted trade and prohibited riba. Whoever desisted after there reached him an admonition from his Lord then for him is what has passed and his matter is with Allah. But whoever reverts then they are of the companions of the Fire to dwell therein eternally"
(Al-Baqarah: 275)
And Allah Ta'ala said:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَذَرُوا مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ الرِّبَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ * فَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا فَأْذَنُوا بِحَرْبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَإِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ رُءُوسُ أَمْوَالِكُمْ لَا تَظْلِمُونَ وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ
"O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what remains of riba if you are truly believers. If you do not, then be warned of a war from Allah and His Messenger! If you repent then for you is your capital, neither wronging others, nor being wronged"
(Al-Baqarah: 278-9)
It is obligatory to return the property of Riba to those from whom it was taken if they are known. If they are unknown, it is confiscated and placed in the Bait ul-Mal. This is in addition to the Shari' (Islamic) punishment of the dealers in Riba "one who consumes and feeds the Riba, who records, and witnesses it", as in the hadith.
لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ آكِلَ الرِّبَا، وَمُؤْكِلَهُ، وَكَاتِبَهُ، وَشَاهِدَيْهِ
"The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم cursed the riba eater, feeder, recorder, and witnesses." And he said:"They are equal." [Narrated by Muslim from Jabir]
Whoever acquires property through the means of gambling, his acquisition is Haram and not legally owned. It is reimbursed to its owner. If its owner is not known, it is confiscated and placed in the Bait ul-Mal, for increasing wealth through gambling is not allowed by Shariah as gambling is prohibited. Allah Ta'ala said:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ * إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُوقِعَ بَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ فِي الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ وَيَصُدَّكُمْ عَنْ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الصَّلَاةِ فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُنْتَهُونَ
"O you who believe, verily alcohol, gambling, sacrificing to stone and divination by arrows are an abomination of Shaitan's handiwork. Avoid them so that you may succeed! Shaitan's only wish is to instigate enmity and hatred between you through alcohol and gambling, and to turn you away from the remembrance of Allah and prayers. Will you not then desist?"
(Al-Mai'dah: 90-91)
2- As for the second part of the question regarding forbidding the money of Riba for itself or for the action ... The answer is that property acquired through illegal work is not Haram in itself, but the prohibition is in how it is acquired or increased, while the property in itself is not Haram. For example, if a person acquired dinars from selling alcohol or through Riba, the dinars do not become Haram in themselves, but the prohibition is in the method by which they were acquired or increased. Therefore, it is not legally owned by the one who acquired it using Haram methods, but the property itself is not Haram hence it is placed in the Muslims' Bait ul Mal (State Treasury), and is spent in their affairs. The only exception to this is the property, which in itself is haram such as pork and alcohol, which are prohibited in themselves.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
26th Dhul Hijjah 1435 AH
20/10/2014 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Saturday, October 18, 2014

The Fikrah (thought) and the Tareeqah (method)

The following is a translation from the archives. 

The Tareeqah represents the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah which explains the manner of implementing the Aqeedah and the manner of implementing the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah. Allah (swt) has commanded Imaan in Waajib Al-Wujood (whose existence is obligatory) and He is Allah, and Imaan in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) whilst He (swt) forbade apostatizing from Islaam and commanded carrying the Islamic Da'wah to the world. Therefore the Ahkaam (rulings) which explain the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions are from the Tareeqah (method) and they include for example the ruling for the Murtadd (apostate), the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad and the Ahkaam relating to the Arab Mushrikeen (polytheists) and non-Arabs etc… And Allah (swt) has commanded chastity whilst forbidding Zinaa (fornication and adultery), and He has commanded the protection of the private property and forbidden thievery (as-Saraqah), and He (swt) has commanded the preservation of human life and forbidden killing it. The explanation of the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions is from the Tareeqah and this is like the Hadd (prescribed punishment) for Zinaa, and for Saraqah (thievery) and the killing of the killer etc…

Allah (swt) has commanded the establishment of a Khalifah and He has prohibited for the Muslims to refrain from establishing the Khalifah for more than three days. He (swt) has commanded the establishment of Judges to settle the disputes and commanded the taking care of the people's affairs whilst He (swt) has forbidden acts of injustice (Mazhaalim) and forbidden deceit in trade, monopoly and oppression. The Ahkaam that explain the manner of implementing these commands and prohibitions are from the Tareeqah and they include the Ahkaam of trade, the Ahkaam of judiciary, the Ahkaam of the Bait-ul-Maal (treasury), the Ahkaam of (dealing with) acts of injustice and the Ahkaam of Hisbah (affairs related to the public well-being) etc…

Also Allah (swt) has commanding the feeding of the Fuqaraa and Masaakeen (impoverished and poor) and has forbidden for anyone to go to sleep whilst being hungry and the rules that explain the manner of how the money or wealth is provided to the poor and preventing them from going to sleep whilst hungry are from the rules of the Tareeqah. These include for example the Ahkaam of Nafaqaat (spending on others), the Ahkaam of Az-Zakaah and the Ahkaam of those who have a right upon the Bait-ul-Maal etc…

As such every Hukm (ruling) that explains the manner of implementing a command from the commands of Allah Ta'Aalaa or a prohibition from His prohibitions is from the Tareeqah. Therefore it should not be asked what the Daleel evidence) for the Talab Al-Jaazim (decisive request i.e. obligation) from the Shaari' (legislator) for the obligation of adhering to the Tareeqah is. This is because the Daleel (evidence) for it is the (same) Daleel that guides to the obligation of abiding by and adhering to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah which is well known. This is like His statement (swt):

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

So no and by your Lord they do not believe until the make you the judge between them in all that which they dispute about amongst them and then they find within themselves no resistance to what you have judged and submit with complete submission (An-Nisaa 65).

And His speech (swt):

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

And whatsoever the Messenger brings to you take it and whatever he forbids you from abstain from it and fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr).

These are two from amongst many other well-known evidences related to this issue.

Allah (swt) did not reveal the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah to treat the problems whilst leaving the human to implement these rulings in the way that he sees fit. So He (swt) did not say don't steal, don't commit Zinaa, don't consume the property of others and do not drink Khamr for example and then just leave man to implement these rules. Rather He (swt) don't steal and then provided rules that explain the manner of implementing that prohibition and these include the Ahkaam of Saraqah, An-Nahab, As-Salab and Al-Ghasab (different types of taking property without right). Allah (swt) explained all of the necessary rulings for the implementation of these Ahkaam and He did not leave man with the right to put down any ruling, whether related to the provision of solutions and treatments to problems or related to the manner of implementing these treatments. Rather He (swt) explained and made them all clear for man.

Islaam is therefore a Fikrah (thought) and a Tareeqah (method). The Fikrah is the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam which explain the treatment of the problems of life. These include for example believing in the validity and applicability of Islaam, the belief in the Kitaab and the Sunnah and the belief in the corruption of Kufr and so on. They also include the like of the Ahkaam of trade, the Ahkaam of marriage, the Ahkaam of renting and leasing, and the Ahkaam of Salaah and so on. As for the Tareeqah (method), then it is represented in the Ahkaam which explain the manner of implementing the Fikrah (thought), in other words the manner of implementing the Aqeedah and the manner of implementing the Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah like the Ahkaam of Al-Jihaad, Ghanaa'im (spoils of war), Fa'i (booty) and the Ahkaam of the apostate (Mutadd) for example. They also include the like of the Ahkaam of Al-'Uqoobaat (punishments) like the Hudood, Al-Janaayaat and At-Ta'zeer, or the rules related to the Imaamah (leadership) like the rules related to judges and Hisbah, and the Ahkaam related to Da'wah, accounting the Rulers, ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar and so on.

As such adhering to and abiding by the Tareeqah is Fard whilst not abiding by it is a sin. If it is not abided by and another method is adopted whilst believing that the (Islamic) Tareeqah is not valid or applicable, then this action would be Kufr (disbelief) and may refuge be sought in Allah from that. If the person did not abide by the Ahkaam of Islaam in their quality as the Tareeqah for the implementation whilst not believing in their suitability and validity like the cutting of the hand of the Saariq (thief) for instance, then he would have disbelieved. However if he did not abide by them due to laziness, neglect or in conformity to what is present or similar to this, then his action would be a Ma'siyah (sinful act of disobedience). It is from this perspective that the judgments of the rulers and judges are measured in respect to them being acts of disobedience of disbelief as the rule and judiciary are from the rules of the Tareeqah. So the judge who rules that the thief should be imprisoned instead of cutting his hand then the issue is examined. If he passed this judgement due to not believing that the cutting of the hand of the thief was valid and applicable then he would have disbelieved and apostatized from Islaam but if he did it to full in line with the wishes of the ruler whilst still believing in the validity of the Hukm of cutting the hand of the thief and its applicability, then in this case he would be someone who is disobedient and each case he would be sinful. The same applies also to the Hukaam (rulers).

Therefore abiding by the Tareeqah, i.e. the Ahkaam which explain the manner of implementing the Ahkaam is a matter which has reached the severity that Allah (swt) has stated in the Noble Aayah:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوك

So no and by your Lord they do not believe until they go to you for judgement (Al-Hashr)

The seriousness has reached the level that the one who does not believe in the Tareeqah has disbelieved and may Allah's refuge be sought from that.

26th Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa 1383
14/09/1963

General guidelines in relation to the obligation of accounting the rulers

The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet. 

1) It is noticeable that the Ummah is completely separate from the State i.e. from the rulers, and that the relationship between the masses and the rulers represents a relationship of two different groups where there is no relationship between the subjects and the State. In addition to that and beyond the fact that it is a relationship between two different groups it is also a relationship based upon hatred, opposition and contradiction in which there exists no rapprochement or anything that suggests that rapprochement or bringing them together is even possible in the future. This reality is what weakens the Ummah's entity in addition to weakening the State entity as well. This is because a herd (subjects) in the absence of a shepherd (a caretaker) from her would represent a flimsy building and structure. The State without subjects who stand as one row behind her would have a flimsy and weak existence which could be removed with the least amount of effort whilst being open to seeking support and assistance from the enemies of the Ummah.

2) This separation between the Ummah and the State was only natural and necessary in the days when the disbelieving States directly governed and ruled the lands and when the British mandate was applied upon them. However after the English authority was officially removed and when the Rulers of the lands who undertook the ruling were from the sons of the Ummah, at this time a justification no longer remained for the continuation of this separation. At that time is was obligatory to transform the relationships between the masses and the State to a state of cohesion between the shepherd and the flock (The ruler and citizens). Despite this the reality is that this separation and dislocation continued and still remains. The rulers are still representative of one group whilst the Ummah represents another with one antagonistic to the other. The Ummah looks to the Rulers as enemies just like they did with the English and perhaps they even felt the oppression stronger from them than they did from the English. On the other hand the rulers regard the Ummah as conspiring against them, wishing to eradicate them and as enemies to them. The Ummah conspires and plots against the State whilst the State conspires and plots against the Ummah. This is what places the Ummah in a state of despair in respect to being able to move forward a single step towards honour, might, prosperity and progress whilst it makes the thinking of the rulers restricted to that which will keep them upon their seats and in their positions of ruling and even this means seeking the assistance of the foreigner. They do not think about elevating the Ummah other than in hypocrisy whilst utilising styles that distance the Ummah from elevation and continuously places her in a weak condition allowing the rulers to remain dominant and in control over them.

3) This condition of separation between the Ummah and the State is the result of the Ummah not undertaking that which Allah (swt) had made obligatory upon her in regards to accounting the rulers and due to her lack of feeling and sensation that she (the Ummah) represents the source of the authority. If the Ummah had sensed and felt that she was the source of the Sultaan (authority) and undertook that which Allah had commanded her with in terms of accounting the rulers she would not have a traitor ruler who is an enemy to her in the position of ruling. In addition there would be no separation or dislocation between her and the ruler, she would not be in this state of weakness, in this broken up condition, backward decline and she would not still be under the influence and exploits of the disbelievers, even if the one directly ruling them was a Muslim from amongst the sons of the Ummah. For this reason it is necessary for the Ummah in order to be a single entity with the rulers and for her to be at one with the State, to undertake the obligation of accounting the rulers and to work with strength and seriousness to create change with the rulers or to change them. As long as she does not do this then there is no doubt that she will continue to quickly decline beyond the level of decline that we currently witness to the point where she will perish or be overlooking her destruction.

4) Indeed Islaam has made accounting the rulers Fard (an obligation) upon the Muslims and has commanded them to account them with the word of truth wherever they are without fearing the blame of the blamers (i.e. any consequences). As for the word of Haqq (truth) and declaring this openly then the Muslims in the second pledge of Al-'Aqabah whilst pledging obedience to the Messenger of Allah (saw) did so upon (the obligation of) speaking the word of Haqq (truth). In the text of the Bai'ah (pledge) the following was states: 'And that we will say the word of truth wherever we may be without fearing in Allah's way the blame of the blamers'. As for accounting the rulers and commanding them with the Ma'roof (that which Islaam has commanded) and forbidding them from the Munkar (that which Allah has prohibited), despite being present within the Aayaat of ordering the Ma'roof and forbidding the Munkar, there are also explicit texts that have come commanding the accounting of the rulers. 'Atiyah related from Abu 'Sa'eed (ra): The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The best of Al-Jihaad is the word of truth to the Sultaan Jaa'ir (oppressive ruler)' and Abi Umaamah said: At Al-Jamratu-l-Uolaa (the first throwing) the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: 'O Messenger of Allah which Jihaad is best? He remained silent and then when he had thrown the second stone he asked him again but was silent again. Then when he had thrown the last stone and had placed his foot in the stirrup to ride away he said: 'Where is the questioner?' So he said: 'I am him O Messenger of Allah'. He (saw) said: 'The word of truth that is said to (or in the presence of) the Sultaan Al-Jaa'ir (the oppressive ruler)'. This text then relates to the ruler and the obligation of speaking the word of Haqq in front of him and the obligation of accounting him. The Messenger of Allah (saw) exhorted struggling against the oppressive rulers whatever was to happen and result in the path of doing that in terms of harm and even if that led to being killed. It has been related from him (saw) that he said: 'The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibn Abi Mutallab and a man who stood in front of an oppressive Imaam and then advised him and was then he (the Imaam) killed him (for that)'. This is from the most clearest and far-reaching forms of expression in respect to exhorting the person to bear harm and even to accept death in the path of accounting the rulers and struggling against the oppressive rulers.

5) Struggling against the Zhulm (oppression) of the rulers that we witness today and accounting those rulers for all of their actions and for their treachery and conspiring against the Ummah is a Fard that Allah (swt) has obligated upon us all as Muslims. Undertaking this Fard is what will remove the divisions and partitions existing between the Ummah and the Rulers and it is what will make the Ummah and the Rulers a single group on the same side and single bloc. This is what will guarantee to effect change upon the rulers and likewise guarantee changing them altogether if it is not possible to effect change upon them. This is the first path of revival because the revival cannot occur by other than the path of ruling when it is established upon the Islamic Aqeedah. And there is no way towards accomplishing that other than bringing about the rule upon the Islamic Aqeedah and establishing the rule upon that basis whilst there is no way towards accomplishing that other than by struggling against the oppressive rulers and accounting them.

7th Rabee'u th-Thaaniy 1386
24/07/1966.

Q&A: The Islamic Nafsiyah, aware obedience and human behaviour

The following is a translation from the Q&A archives:

Answers to questions: The Islamic Nafsiyah, aware obedience and human behaviour.

The Nafsiyah:

The Islamic Nafsiyah is where the inclination (mayl) for things and actions is built upon the basis of Islaam. Therefore when passing judgement upon a particular person in respect to him possessing an Islamic Nafsiyah or not, if that person had an aversion to Islaam in terms of his inclinations towards things and actions then it could be judged that he does not possess an Islamic Nafsiyah. However if that person made his inclinations (muyool) towards things and towards actions built upon the basis of Islaam and yet there were gaps existing within him that occurred from him on some occasions like if he was to not pray Fajr before the rising of the sun due to sleep and then made Qadaa for it, or if he glanced at a woman and took delight in that glance extending and repeating it but then regretted that and pulled himself away or if he was to act wrongly in some of his dealings with people but then retracted them or if he was prone to lying in small issues amongst other similar actions, then these gaps (Thugrah) must be treated but they do not at the same time make the Nafsiyah of that person un-Islamic. This means that it is not permissible for a Muslim to accuse the like of this person by saying that his Nafsiyah is not Islaamic. Rather his Nafsiyah is an Islamic Nafsiyah which has gaps in it that must be treated because if they were to be repeated and if they remained within him his Nafsiyah would then become un-Islamic in the future due to his aversion to Islaam (in those issues). However, as long as these remain (only) as gaps then his Nafsiyah would remain as an Islamic Nafsiyah. A number of gaps have been related in relation to the Sahaabah (rah) so for instance there is the example of the relations some of the Sahaabah had with their wives in Ramadhaan and the performance of the associated Kaffaarah (act of expiation) and there is also the example of the incident when the Messenger (saw) turning the head of Fadl Bin Al-'Abbaas away from a young woman when he saw that he was repeating his glance towards her with desire. There are numerous examples of incidents that occurred which revealed gaps in the conduct of the Sahaabah (rah) and yet these did not lead to their Nafsiyahs being discredited in any way or make them people possessing un-Islamic Nafsiyahs. Therefore, just as being silent over the gaps is incorrect whilst be necessary to treat them, accusing those who have gaps of their Nafsiyahs being shed or stripped of Islaam and accusing them of possessing un-Islamic Nafsiyahs is (also) incorrect. It is a danger for the Da'wah and the Hizb to demand from the people to be angels because that is impossible and similarly it is dangerous to take that as a weapon to justify focusing with determination upon the gaps because of the fear that they would lead to an aversion to Islaam. Rather the Hizb attempts to treat every individual in which these gaps exist by alerting him and by pursuing him and then if he is does not rectify himself in the manner that Allah has commanded and they are not removed from him then the Hizb will leave him completely (i.e. administratively).

The aware obedience:

Understanding the meaning of a thing or matter in a correct manner accompanied by the belief (I'tiqaad) that the understanding is his, makes the person proceed towards it in accordance to his understanding of it whilst understanding the meaning of the State (Dawlah) makes the existence of the conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself. Similarly understanding the meaning of the Ummah makes the existence of conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself just as understanding the meaning of the Hizb makes the existence of conduct based on obedience indispensable in itself. The obedience is a fundamental matter for the existence of discipline and order whether this is within a State, the Ummah or the Hizb and it is from the most important manifestations indicative of the Hizbiy discipline and keeping order or the general discipline and order within the State and the Ummah.

For this reason the Qur'aan came with numerous Aayaat urging and exhorting obedience despite the presence of the Wahi (divine inspiration/revelation), miracles, the Message and the personality of the Messenger (saw) which are all sufficient to instil obedience. And the obedience which the Qur'aan came with is obedience that the entity of the State, the Ummah and the Hizb are all established upon its basis. At the same time it explains the characteristic of obedience, this is when it becomes a natural attribute to undertake the obligation of obedience whenever it is possible to do so in addition to being an attribute that forbids obedience at the time when this obedience would be harmful to the Ummah and to the ruler. So we find the Qur'aan when mentioning the nature and character of obedience stating:

أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ

And obey Allah and the Messenger.

فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي

So follow me and obey my command.

اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا

Hear and obey.

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ يُدْخِلْهُ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ

And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will be entered into gardens beneath which rivers flow.

مَنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ

Who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ

And whosoever obeys Allah and the Messenger then they are those whom Allah has bestowed his favour upon.

And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

مَنْ يُطِعِ الأَميرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي

And whoever obeys the Ameer has obeyed me.

In these Aayaat and this Hadeeth Allah (swt) has commanded obedience in a Mutlaq (absolute and unrestricted) manner. The command of obedience has therefore come without restriction and qualification however the Messenger (saw) whilst explaining obedience to them (the Muslims) he made them understand that what is intended by obedience here is the obedience based upon awareness and not blind obedience.

So he (saw) said:

لَا طَاعَةَ لِمَخْلُوقٍ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ الخَالِق

There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the creator.

Therefore the aware obedience is the obedience which is within the bounds and limits of Islaam. When he (saw) explained the obedience that is required ne made clear that it is the aware obedience the meaning of which is obedience which is within the limits of Islaam and not the obedience in the matter in which the person undertaking it is convinced and is in agreement with it. The fact that it is aware is that it is understood that he obeys within (the bounds of) the ideology and this is the meaning of the statement of the Messenger (saw): 'There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the creator'.

As for when Islaam demands the obedience it demands it in absolute way (Mutlaqan). So it says: 'Obey' and it does not restrict it by anything and as such when it demands the obedience it demands the absolute obedience without restriction of qualification. It is obligatory on Muslims to understand when it is demanded from them that it has been demanded in an absolute and unrestricted manner. However he (saw) focused in their minds that the meaning of this absolute obedience is the aware obedience i.e. the obedience within the limits of Islaam. Islaam did not suffice requesting the obedience from the Ummah so that the moral characteristic of obedience would be natural within her but rather it also forbade her explicitly from some forms of obedience.

Allah (swt) said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِنْ تُطِيعُوا فَرِيقًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ يَرُدُّوكُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ كَافِرِينَ

O you who believe if you obey a group from amongst those who have been given the Book they would turn you back after your belief so that you become disbelievers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِكْرِنَا وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ وَكَانَ أَمْرُهُ فُرُطًا

And do not obey the one whom we have locked his heart from our reminder and who follows his desire whilst his affair was ever in neglect.

وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ

And if you were to obey most of those upon the earth you would be misguided away from the path of Allah.

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ

So do not obey the disbelievers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آَثِمًا أَوْ كَفُورًا

And do not obey from amongst them the one who is sinful or ungrateful.

فَلَا تُطِعِ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ

So do not obey the deniers.

وَلَا تُطِعْ كُلَّ حَلَّافٍ مَهِينٍ

And do not obey every wretched oath maker.

All of these Aayaat forbid obedience to people of specific characteristics or descriptions.

Allah (swt) has made this clear to us so that the obedience is shaped and formed within us in a manner that brings a general order and discipline. This is so that this general order can become manifested within the reality of any body or entity whether this is the Ummah, the Hizb or the State. And it is also so that we distance the discipline from those areas in which discipline will lead to harm for the entity or body if the obedience was present. For this reason the Muslim must when responding to the command of Allah to be obedient, to abstain from the obedience to those whom Allah has forbidden obedience to. In this way the entity or body will be shaped and formed in a sound manner and the general discipline and order will exist soundly. Islaam did not find this alone to be sufficient but rather it addressed the ruler and made clear to him the limits of his obedience to the Ummah in regards to the danger that can harm her. So it forbade him from obeying her or obeying individuals from her in that which he sees to be harmful for her.

Allah (swt) said:

لَوْ يُطِيعُكُمْ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ لَعَنِتُّمْ

If he obeyed you in many matters then you would surely be in trouble (Al-Hujuraat 7).

So He (swt) negated obedience of the Messenger (saw) to them in many of the matters as a protection and to prevent hardship and difficulty from befalling them. Therefore when the obedience has been commanded it is absolute and not restricted to the agreement of the one being commanded or his disagreement whilst the one being commanded understands that he obeys within the limits and bounds set by Islaam. When he knows that he is obedient he must understand about the obedience that it is the obedience that Allah has commanded him with and this is the obedience of the one who has been given the authority and right to be obeyed. 'And whoever obeys his Ameer then he has obeyed me'. And he must understand that obedience to the disbelievers and those who lead astray cannot be allowed to happen because it would mean the worst of harms. As for the Wali Al-Amr (the one who is in authority) then he acts in accordance to that which is in the interest (Maslahah) of the Ummah and he does not obey them in what he sees to be against their interest however all of this must occur within the limits set by Islaam. What is intended by the limits of Islaam is that which is Qat'iy (decisive/definite) to be from Islaam whilst that which is Zhanny (indefinite) is not considered being from these limits. Therefore if for example the person in authority viewed that leasing land was not permitted whilst the one under his authority viewed that it is permissible, then when the one in authority forbids the leasing of land it is obligatory for the one under his command to obey him and even if it was contrary to his opinion. This is because the command of the Imaam raises (removes) the dispute and analogy is made for all those who are in (legitimate) positions of authority. Therefore it is not said that this command is contrary to Islaam and as such I will not obey it in the case where he may be truthful in that he views that it is contrary to Islaam whilst the person in authority views that it is from Islaam. This cannot be said because this is considered to be Tamarrud (rebelliousness/insubordination) but rather it is obligatory for this command to be obeying as long as it has a Shubhat-ud-Daleel (semblance of an evidence) connecting it to Islaam as perceived by the one in authority who has commanded it upon that basis. Insubordination and being rebellious or disobedient to the one in authority is a great sin as explained in the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (saw): 'Whoever obeys the Ameer then he has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the Ameer then he has disobeyed me' and it is established that every group of three (embarking on a journey) choose an Ameer for themselves making obedience to him obligatory.

Human behaviour:

It must be clear that the origin of the Sulook (conduct/behaviour) is the Taaqah Al-Hayyawiyah (vital (life) energy. It is the vital energy that drives and demands satisfaction and so the human undertakes movement, speech or action for the sake of satisfaction. This is the origin of the Sulook (behaviour) and so the Sulook is satisfaction. However that which specifies this behaviour is the concept (Mafhoom) and not just the Fikr (thought) alone. This is because the Fikr (thought) does not have an effect upon the behaviour unless the person believes in it and binmds this belief to the energy i.e. unless it becomes a concept from amongst the concepts held by the person. Therefore the statement that the behaviour or conduct (Sulook) of the person is in accordance to his concepts is a statement that is certain and not open to doubt. This is because belief in the thought (Fikr) when it is bound and connected to the energy (Taaqah) means that it is not possible for the behaviour to not be in accordance to it. However there are some thoughts, the belief in which is tied to the energy in a strong way which make it hard to believe in another thought that would remove them or it is difficult to remove their effects except after the passing of some time. In this case the thought would remain without being transformed into a concept or it is transformed in a manner that is not smooth or in an intermittent way. This is most often the case with the most deeply rooted concepts and these require extra attention and effort whilst possibly requiring some time.

Following on from this, the Fikr (thought) is the result of the 'Aql (mind) and it is not the Sulook (conduct) and the Sulook is the result of the Taaqah (energy) and it is not the Fikr (thought), just as the thinking was not the inclination and the 'Aqliyah was not the Nafsiyah. So there exists an energy (Taaqah) that requires satisfaction and there is a mind that thinks. They are two different matters but when they are tied where the conduct is in accordance to the thought it would represent the personality (Shakhsiyah). If however they were not bound and remained disconnected and separate then there would merely have been inclinations and thoughts.

However the behaviour being in opposition to the thought happens most often in respect to the partialities and as such do not have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (personality). Rather it has an effect upon some of the behaviours on some occasions. In the expedition of Bani Mustalaq the Ansaar called against the Muhaajiroon whilst the Muhaajiroon called against the Ansaar when the pride of tribalism and partisan prejudice manifested in the two groups. On this occasion the Sulook (conduct) was disconnected from the Fikr (thought) where the concept held by these two groups was at this time not a concept i.e. it was separated from being tied to the energy (Taaqah). This led to each of the groups conducting themselves and behaving in accordance to their inclinations (Muyool) and not in accordance to their thoughts reflecting that their deep-rooted concepts had been agitated. This however did not change or have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (personality) of the Ansaar or the personality of the Muhaajiroon and it was not long until the concept returned to being a concept and not just a thought alone. Therefore the disconnection of the conduct from the thought on some occasions does not have an effect upon the Shakhsiyah (i.e. as being distinct and remaining Islaamic).

As for the statement regarding the human possessing two opposing and contradictory concepts towards a single thing or matter then this is an incorrect statement. The person cannot have except one single Mafhoom (concept) and that is the thought (Fikr) which its belief is connected to the Taaqah ((Vital) energy). As for the other (i.e. reason for the conflict) then it represents a thought and not a concept in this situation i.e. that which is related to the behaviour and conduct. Similarly the statement that the person has two viewpoints in life is also an incorrect and erroneous statement. The person does not have except a single fundamental concept about life and this is the fundamental thought that transforms into a concept and there is none other than this. If something else is found other than that then it merely represents a thought and not a concept.

Q&A: Is the work to establish the Islamic State limited to the Arab countries only?

Question:
As-Salaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu
I pray that Allah grant you success and bless us with the victory by your hands our Ameer, soon Inshallah, this matter belongs to Allah Alone, and we bear witness you are the best successor to the best predecessors
In the book: Concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir on page 73 (English version) it mentions:
"Carrying the Islamic da'wah and the political struggle for its cause can be undertaken only in the society which the party has defined as its area for activity (majal).Hizb ut-Tahrir considers the society in all the Islamic lands to be one society because its entire cause lies in one case, Islam. However it takes the Arab lands that are a part of the Islamic Lands as a starting point. It considers the establishment of an Islamic state in the Arab countries as a nucleus for the Islamic state as a natural step."
It was also mentioned in the book: Structuring of a Party on pages 6 - 7:
"Therefore, it is only natural for the Islamic State to be re-established in the Arab territories, so that it will serve as a nucleus for the Islamic State which will encompass all Islamic lands. Though carrying the Islamic Da'wah in the Arab territories is necessary it is also necessary for the Islamic Da'wah to reach out to the rest of the Islamic world.
Notwithstanding this, initiating the work in the Arab territories does not mean that no work be done outside Arab territories before unifying the Arab territories in the Islamic State. The work must be carried out in the Arab territories to re-establish the Islamic State, then the State will grow and encompass the neighboring territories, regardless of whether they consist of Arabs or not".
Can it be understood from these texts that the target countries we work in to establish the Khilafah are the Arab countries only, and that the work in rest of the non-Arab countries is for the purpose of carrying the Dawah and not for the establishment of the Islamic State there? Especially after mentioning that the nucleus of the coming Islamic state, soon by the permission of Allah, must be in the Arab countries first and then it expands to the rest of the Islamic countries.
Please explain what is the meaning of these texts specifically, I found some confusion in understanding them.
May Allah Bless you our Ameer and May Allah make us victorious by you and bring the victory by your hands.
From Malik Murad

Answer:
Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu,
It must not be understood from the quoted texts from the two books, Concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir and Structuring of a Party, that the work to establish the State is limited to the Arab countries. Both texts mention that it is only natural, in origin the State be established in the Arab countries and not in others, this is because the Arabic language is the language of Islam, it is essential in understanding Islam and carrying out Ijtihad, this is why it is out of priority and proximity that the State be established in the Arab countries, that speak the Arabic language.
But this might not be achieved, and the State may be established in non-Arab countries, since the whole Islamic world is suitable for the establishment of the Khilafah State, even though the priority is for the Arab countries. The Hizb does not limit its work to establish the State in the Arab countries, but it is also working to establish the State in non-Arab countries. The Hizb was founded in Arab countries, and worked there, the Majal (field of work to establish the state) was there initially because this is where the Hizb is and it is the place of their work, but when the Dawah grew outside the Arab countries and found a solid ground outside the Arab world, the Hizb extended its Majal and began to work to establish the Khilafah in the Muslim countries, whether it was Arab or non-Arab, if the natural state is achieved and it is established in the Arab countries, then all praise be to Allah, and if it is established in the other Islamic countries it is also all praise be to Allah.
وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ
"Your Lord creates and chooses whatever He wills."
(Al-Qasas: 68)
And we seek assistance from Allah سبحانه وتعالى.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
20 Dhul Hijjah 1435 AH
14/10/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Q&A: Recent Developments in Yemen

Question:
The recent developments in Yemen were ambiguous to me, particularly the signing of the Peace and National Partnership Agreement on 21/09/2014, as though these developments have shuffled the papers... How were the Houthis able to reach Sanaa and lead its power and influence without effective resistance from the authorities? Does it imply that the influence of the British in Yemen has ended, and America that supports the Houthis has become the influential initiator in Yemen or is it the sharing of influence? Please clarify these matters, May Allah reward you with goodness.

Answer:
To clarify the answer we will review the following issues:
1. The influence of the British in Yemen has settled in recent decades, especially since Ali Saleh came to power in 1978, where he has trimmed, rather clipped, the wings of American influence in Yemen, and pursued its agents and followers, and the effective political class in Yemen became almost exclusive to the British and its agents... This has continued up until the Arab Spring events in 2011 in Yemen, where people rose up against Ali Saleh for his tyranny and his unilateral ruling. In their movement, they were affected by the winds of change in other Arab countries. However, the lack of political consciousness of the rebelling masses has enabled other parties, especially the United States and their alliances: Iran regionally and Houthis and Southern Movement locally, to exploit the current events wherein America saw a unique opportunity. Since for the first time Ali Saleh's sovereignty had been strongly shaken, his grip on power weakened, and the authority's institutions are loosen.
2. America began to move earnestly to establish a solution to the events that matches it through its embassy and envoys, as well as its local followers. Britain has actually felt that America is serious about this, so it went on its usual way, to take the initiative for a solution that preserves its influence and in which it keeps pace with America and satisfies it by giving it something that does not make Britain lose its influence in Yemen. So it moved its tools in the Gulf States, and launched in the beginning of April 2011 the Gulf Initiative which requires the resignation of Ali Abdullah Saleh, pledge not to prosecute him and hand over his powers to his deputy Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who is loyal to it. Then to hold elections within two months and after that begin to work for a new constitution. America has approved the initiative and considered it an interim step in the removal of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Because it saw in him the strong man of Britain in Yemen, while it saw that Hadi is soft and is easier to deal with him according to its interests more than it could with Ali Saleh. Yemen News - Reuters quoted on 14/08/2013 what indicates that; it said, "Washington finds Hadi a more amendable partner than Saleh". Thus America saw the possibility of weakening Britain's influence in Yemen after the disposal of the British strong agent, Ali Abdullah Saleh.
America deemed the initiative as an interim step, it wanted to twist the neck of the initiative to improve it or revoke it through two means: Firstly, encouraging their followers, especially the Houthis to reject the initiative and disrupt it. Secondly it sent its man Jamal bin Omar as the envoy to the United Nations, or rather more accurately to America, to manage the affairs of the initiative in a manner that achieves the interests of America in full, or in an effectively partial way. Thus, the initiative became like a ball tossed around. So in one hand, Britain and its followers in the Gulf have grabbed the threads of the solution by the Gulf Initiative, and have created a public opinion that made America accept it. While on the other hand, America sees it as a step through which it won by getting rid of Ali Saleh, the stringent British agent. As his successor, Hadi, though is of the British followers, but is less worrying and of a more lenient character, which may enable America to change the terms of the initiative, disrupt its implementation or abolish it. This is done through force from the Houthis and the Southern Movement and through negotiating work through one of its men, Jamal bin Omar... In other words, Britain viewed the initiative as a salvage of its influence and preservation. Since Hadi is of its men and the political milieu is its production, at the same time it satisfies America perhaps it relieves its pressures... America has approved the initiative as an interim to move through it to have the actual influence in Yemen.
3. Things moved after that in this direction. The Gulf initiative was followed by the National Dialogue Conference, which began its first session on 18/03/2013 and continued through 25/01/2014, where it resulted in a document that transforms Yemen into a federalist system of six regions... However, the official spokesperson for the Houthis movement, Mohamed Abdel Salam announced, saying, "We did not sign this document and we consider it does not represent a solution, not to the issue of the South or to the unresolved national issues, and the division was in accordance to the political whim." (Al-Alam TV website 10/02/2014). Thus America, through its agents in Yemen refused the method of partition and not the partition itself, has prepared for the next step to extend the influence of its agents. So, on the one hand, it focused on the principle of division, and on the other hand the Houthis and its followers rejected the initiative until it yields to its terms and to re-divide to have a port for them on the sea, otherwise work to repeal it... As a prelude to that, America has exploited the government's decision to raise fuel prices, which took effect on 30th July 2014, and stirred the Houthis and the Southern Movement in heated resistance against the Hadi government. America was supporting this movement against Hadi, politically and with security:
As for politically, America does not deem the Houthis terrorists like al-Qaeda, rather it considers them a political movement. The American ambassador, Matthew Tauler said in his press conference on 18/09/2014, "We do make a distinction between a group that participates and continues participation in the political process. The Houthi movement participated in the National Dialogue Conference and made many positive contributions to the outcomes of it. They have a legitimate political position and aspiration to take part in the political process." The American ambassador added that the Embassy is following these dialogues "Through our conversations with some of the participants in which we know that the dialogues focused on the demands of the Houthis as they are looking to have a role in the government, and these issues are legitimate for any party that participated in the dialogue to discuss". He said that the success of the negotiations will be a step in the right direction "particularly if it will stabilize the situation in Sana'a and surrounding areas" (Observers Press site).
As for security, upon entering Sanaa, the Houthis were resisted by the army and police, during which seven of the Houthis were killed on 09/09/2014, and the balance of power was almost in favor of Hadi's side. However, America hastily rushed to send Ben Omar, the United Nations envoy to Yemen, "or in reality, the American envoy". So he exerted pressure on Hadi, and smothered the issue by the invitation to negotiate, and to give the green light to the Houthis to escalate their move during the times of the negotiation, backed by American pressures, in the character of Ben Omar on Hadi and the army. The American ambassador had earlier, on 11/09/2014, visited the Yemeni defense minister, and the United States Ambassador to Sanaa, Matthew Tauler confirmed that Yemen's security and stability concerns the region and the world due to the nature of the geopolitical location of Yemen. The new American ambassador, during his meeting with the Minister of Defense, Major General Mohammed Nasser Ahmed, reiterated his government's position in support for security, stability and unity of Yemen. The meeting dealt with the nature of the security situation taking place in Yemen and the safe ways out of the current crises. (Yemeni Scene, 11/09/2014). It is likely that this visit to the Minister of Defense was in order to prevent the army from standing in the face of the Houthis, and this was what the events have revealed... Thus, recently on 28/09/2014, some soldiers have demonstrated against the Minister of Defense, Mohammed Nasser demanding his dismissal and his trial for the army not carrying out its missions ...
4. Britain has realized that America is serious about using force to gain access to significant gains in ruling Yemen, and that the Houthis have influential strength from arms and ammunition supplied by Iran... Britain's realization of this matter proceeds to resist it in a bi-parallel manner:
The first: is that Hadi should exert effort to exploit his position as a president to prevent the enablement of the Houthis of the effective power.
The second line is the introduction of Ali Saleh as a partner for the Houthis in opposing the rule of Hadi; already some of his supporters have already joined the Houthis, carrying the banner of the General People's Congress (the party of the former Yemeni President). When the British Ambassador was asked whether she was communicating with the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh she said: "I do not have a direct relationship with Ali Abdullah Saleh, but I communicate with the General People's Congress including parties close to it." (Middle East, 27/09/2014). It is understood from this that Britain has also instructed its agent Ali Saleh to cooperate with the Houthis, since the British Ambassador admitted her communication with the party of Ali Saleh, the one who runs the party and controls it with no rival or opponent to him. As well as the official spokesman for the Houthis, Mohamed Abdel Salam said, "We consider that Saleh had no role after the revolution of February 2011 and prior to that, and we hope that the outputs of the Dialogue Conference will address that." (Kuwaiti Politics, 23/09/2014). This also indicates the Houthis' positive view towards Ali Saleh, which confirms the fact that the British instructed Ali Saleh and their ruling party, the Congress Party, which is headed by Ali Saleh to take this position and cooperate with the Houthis during their access to the capital. So that Mohsen al-Ahmar, Adviser to President Hadi for Defense and Security Affairs, who has resisted the Houthis in the beginning as mentioned by the official spokesman for the Houthis, had stopped resisting the Houthis, left the country and took refuge in the Saudi regime. He was reported saying, after his appearance in Saudi Arabia where he thanked them for protecting him that the reason for leaving is: "We have decided, after consultation with the President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, to avoid civil war at any price" (New Arab, 26/09/2014). Thus, Britain shoved some of its men to participate with the Houthis and kept away some of its men who fought the Houthis...
These measures by Britain to shove Ali Saleh with the Houthis so if Hadi could not use his position as president to prevent America and its followers from the actual access to the rule; then Ali Saleh would be an active partner with the Houthis and then preserve the British influence in Yemen and in particular that the Houthis have no popular support to make them unilateral rulers of Yemen...
5. In this setting, the atmosphere of Houthis' force, American-backed politically and with security, and the atmosphere of political cunningness which is fared by the British... In this setting, the Houthis stormed Sanaa, and when the army tried to resist, Jamal Bin Omar intervened under the pretext of negotiation and to prevent it. The Houthis exploited this setting to their advantage and took over the government buildings, which included the building of the Prime Minister, and the command centre of the army, and the television compound... and they attacked some of the buildings and wreaked their contents, all or most of the capital fell under their clutches... In this setting, Jamal Bin Omar also used varied means of pressure to hold the Peace Agreement and National Partnership, and was clear that it aimed for the entry of American influence in an open manner in Yemen. Some of the gains for the Houthis were stated in the Convention; for example, in the terms of the agreement it stated, "The appointment of new political advisers to the President of the Republic from the Southern Movement and the Houthis," "install political advisors to the President of the Republic with criteria for candidates for positions in the new government", "chooses the president and the ministers of defense, finance and foreign and domestic as par the condition of their agreement with the criteria listed above, in addition to the lack of affiliation or allegiance to any political party." The Houthis considered this agreement to have annulled the Gulf Initiative, spokesman for the Houthis, Mohamed Abdel Salam, stated that the Gulf Initiative has ended, never to return, pointing out that the peace agreement and partnership which took place in the president's headquarters last Sunday 21/9/2014 documenting a political contract with a new political partnership based on the outcomes of the Dialogue Conference and to meet popular demands. (News Online, 25/09/2014).
However the official authority remained in the hands of Britain via President Hadi, and some important ministries... and as we said earlier, Britain opened an avenue to Ali Saleh with the Houthis as a back up to save its influence if Hadi could not exploit his presidential power to stop the strong interventions for the Houthis in power. There is a security supplement to the Convention which the Houthis refused to sign but they signed it after about a week when Hadi postponed choosing a prime minister because the Houthis did not sign the security attachment, i.e., that the president has exploited this time his presidential powers to postpone naming the prime minister for the refusal of Houthis to sign the security supplement.
They signed it even though they have yet to implement it practically! Nevertheless, they signed it after their embracement in delaying naming the prime minister, so Jamal Bin Omar that Houthis should sign the agreement and that the give and take should be in its implementation and not in the signing!
Thus, Jamal Bin Omar stated that the Houthi group has signed the security supplement of the peace agreement and the partnership after a week of refusing to sign it, and this was confirmed by the official spokesman for the Houthis Mohamed Abdel Salam when he said, "The signing of the security supplement took place after minor adjustments." (Khabar News Agency, 27/9/2014).
It seems that Iran too has a role since the signing came two days after the Yemeni authorities released two experts from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard accused of spying and training militants, in addition to the release of the eight others convicted of smuggling weapons from Iran to the Houthis! Britain has focused on the need for implementation and not just the signing, it expressed its position through the British Ambassador in Yemen, Jane Marriott "demanded that the Houthis have to respect what they signed by the withdrawal of their troops from the streets of Sanaa and surrounding the camp." She said, "We want to see them leave (Sanaa) sooner rather than later, and leave security to the security forces of Yemen while we accept that the Houthis and others have a legitimate role to play in Yemen. They must withdraw from the streets of Sanaa, when the new prime minister is appointed and we will observe this closely with the expectation that the Houthis do so, though if they do not then we will consider this as a breach of the agreement. " (Middle East, 27/09/2014).
6. Hadi has revealed many of the pressures he faced, in his speech to the heads of officials, ministers and deputies in the regime on 23/9/2014, i.e. two days after signing of the agreement, the following was reported by Saba' (a Yemeni news agency): "I address you in this difficult moment in our Yemeni history and I am fully aware of the difficulty of the past few days, and I realize that you all feel the shock of what happened and the surrendering of some state institutions and army units in the way that we've seen, but you should also know that the conspiracy may have been beyond imagination, we have been stabbed and betrayed". He added, "It's a conspiracy exceeded the limits of the country, where many forces allied from stakeholders who lost their property and opportunists who see in every calamity to eat of the wealth of the nation" (Yemeni News Agency / SABA, 23/9/2014). Hadi has attacked Iran, as mentioned by Asriya.net on September 15, 2014, saying: "We repeatedly warned of any interference in Yemen's internal affairs, but what is happening is perhaps are messages in order to impose regional hegemony and expose Yemen to large risks, and there is evidence to prove Iran's interference in the affairs of Yemen."
7. America has blessed the agreement which indicates its supports for everything that took place, it wanted the Houthis to enter the capital, and an agreement to be reached with them under the pressure of weapons, and to be accepted as a significant political constituent... In a phone call from the White House, the US President's advisor for counter-terrorism, Lisa Monaco with President Hadi said, "This achievement (signing of the agreement) will represent the essential foundation which is built on the outputs of the comprehensive National Dialogue Conference." She also said, "The United States is closely following events step by step" (Yemen Street from Conference Net, 24/9/2014). Therefore all that occurred was under the United States' pressure to dictate to the regime to recognise the Houthi component is affiliated with Iran as a component of the political makeup in Yemen even though it is armed, thereby America can use them for the implementation of its plans there as it did in Lebanon with the armed political parties affiliated with Iran.
And there is an issue sought by the United States in Yemen and causing it to be a concern to subjugate Yemen under its commands, not because of its strategic location, but for what is published of reports that indicate that Yemen sits on great oil and gas wealth. It was (revealed by Sky News an American television station, that the largest source of oil in the world connects to an underground oil reserve is in Yemen, part of which extends to Saudi Arabia, a fraction at a depth of 1800 meters, but the major reserve is under the land of Yemen... (Happy Yemen site, 8/1/2013).) However the Ministry of Oil of Yemen denied the report by Sky News as stated on the Site of the Ministry of Oil and Minerals of Yemen 13/01/2013.
Whereas the Sky News piece remains a topic of interest, especially for the colonial powers such as the United States, and this is why the relationships between the American ambassador to Yemen and the Oil Ministry is a warm relations! It was reported by Saba' Net on 15/09/2014 from the meeting of the American ambassador in Yemen with the Oil Minister in the ministry on 15/9/2014, it quoted the following: "the American ambassador pointed to the desire of many American companies to meet with specialists in the Ministry of Oil and minerals on the sidelines of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conference which will be held in November 2014 CE, pointing to the expansion of investment in the petroleum sector in Yemen, especially since a lot of areas are still under exploration." All this increases the interest of America in Yemen.
8. Conclusion:
a. The ongoing conflict in Yemen is between two parties: America (its followers and agents) and Britain (its followers and agents) and each of the two parties used their means and methods... America followers are proceeding with logic of force of the Houthis and Southern Movement and Iran, in addition to the method of negotiation to achieve gains via Jamal Bin Omar... Meanwhile Britain is following the logic of political cunningness by exploiting Hadi for his presidential power and handling of America for the prevention of its pressures, and without allowing it to take hold of sensitive positions in the government, then by pushing Ali Saleh and his men with the Houthis, in case of Hadi's failure and Houthis get the upper hand, Britain will have a share in power and not any share, via Ali Saleh and his men.
b. The Houthis do not have sufficient popular support to rule Yemen and as long as the situation remains as such, then the power factor will not be enough to take power in Yemen and its continuation, and in particular that the political class is not with them, and the creation of a new political class is difficult under the current circumstances... However Hadi and his group despite having a political circle, but their status has been shaken by the recent developments, and this will affect the descent of influence of Britain for being the only dominant power as it was in Yemen during the past decades, so it is not easy to Britain and its agents that rule alone as before and for this rule to continue.
c. Thus, this means that the expected solution in Yemen is a compromise between America and Britain on the method of the capitalists, so there will be joint power between the parties... And compromise usually does not last unless they have it as a respite of the warrior until America or Britain is able to resolve the matter to its advantage, which means that the events in Yemen will continue to be volatile, then calm at times, then volatile again according to the balance of political and military forces among the conflicting parties.
d. Based on the above it can be concluded that the issues in Yemen are on the rise without settling decisively only in two cases: First: America or Britain will be able to resolve matters in their favour, and thereby dominating the actual influence in Yemen. This is not easy as we have elaborated above, and the second: that Allah سبحانه وتعالى honours the Ummah with the Khilafah, which will trample the influence of the colonizers Kuffar and uproot them from the land and eliminate their evil amongst mankind, and so Kufr and its people will be humiliated, and Islam and its people will be glorified, and believers will rejoice in Allah's victory.
وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ
"And that day the believers will rejoice. In the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful."
(Ar-Rum: 4-5)
It is a fact that the people of Yemen are a people of faith and wisdom... to establish this matter to win in both realms, Allah is with the righteous.
7 Dhul Hijjah 1435 AH
1/10/2014 CE