Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Recent Developments in the Cyprus Issue

Question: The talks on Cyprus were concluded on Friday, 20/01/2017, after they were resumed on 18/1/2017. These negotiations staggered since the beginning of 2013 and stalled since November 2014, but were re-launched in May 2015 and continued to stop and start until late 2016. Then it was powerfully and strikingly set off on 09/01/2017 in Geneva to re-unite Cyprus with the participation of Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci, and his Greek Cypriot counterpart Nicos Anastasiades. The negotiations were joined by the three guarantors states of the security of Cyprus namely Turkey, Greece and Britain along with the European Union ...  So what is the latest on the issue of Cyprus that led to its resumption in this active way? What is the solution expected for the Cyprus issue? May Allah reward you with goodness.

Answer: To answer these questions we must review this issue from its different aspects: local, regional, and international, and then the overlapping aspects: locally, regionally and internationally; and the developments that caused this active movement will be clear, followed by the expected solution to this issue, Allah willing.
First, local aspects:
The background of the Cyprus crisis locally is a power struggle between the Turkish Cypriot Muslims and Greek (Roman) Cypriots. In order to monopolize power and the expulsion of the Muslim Turks from the state apparatus, some nationalists of the Greek Cypriots developed what was known at the time the Akritas plan in 1963, that stipulates the removal of the Turks from their positions in preparation for union with Greece, and the process of bloody revenge from Muslims started. There were massacres, and displacement and deprivation of property, which was the policy of the Greek Cypriots for the union with Greece; the British hands were not far from this. It is worth noting that Britain was the actual ruler of the island at the time and had the largest two military bases there. Cyprus was granted independence in 1960, provided the Greek Cypriots give up on the idea of ​​union with Greece that was called Enosis in return for the Turks to abandon the idea of ​​union with Turkey the so-called taksim. By 1967 the actual division was the situation on the island, and a state of hostility between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots Muslims have surfaced.
Second, regional aspects:
Greece was behind the Greek Cypriots and provided them with support and plans to annex the island to it, and in return Turkey had provided some support for Turkish Muslims. The two countries were the two regional powers that feed the state of the local division of Cyprus. On 15/7/1974 the Greek military junta supported, with the behest of America, the military coup in Cyprus to seal the question of accession to Greece. The process of the actual annexation of Cyprus to Greece was to assume if it wasn’t for the intervention of the Turkish army after five days of the Cypriot coup and the invasion of the north part of the island at the behest of the British, then the Turkish army transferred the small havens sometimes isolated of Turkish Muslims into one continuous geographical area with an estimated area of 3335 kilometers squares, i.e. one-third of the territory of the island, but with only 210 thousand people, i.e. a fifth of the island's population. These two forces, namely Turkey and Greece are two influential regional powers in Cyprus, but also the Jewish entity has a great influence there, but it is hidden, in the security and economic aspects particularly the gas agreements.
Third, international aspects:
Since Britain annexed it officially in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War, and until recently, Britain is therefore the most powerful international player in Cyprus, and when it granted its independence in 1960. Britain officially remained, in accordance with the treaties, the only international force guarantors of the situation of Cyprus after it had included two regional powers Turkey and Greece 1955 as guarantor powers of Cyprus. By involving these regional powers, Britain wanted to prevent the exploitation of America through its influence in Greece to annex Cyprus to Greece. Britain has placed the Turkish stick that was formerly loyal to it in the spokes of Greece, and maintained two military bases in Cyprus, of the greatest British military bases in world. They include 24 thousand troops and huge navy and air forces, today they are a great mark of British colonialism, both launched forces in the Suez war in 1956, and both participated with aircrafts with the Jewish state in the 1967 war, and the wars of Britain alongside America in the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and from them it spies and monitors the region. Therefore, the security of Cyprus means Britain's security until today,
Economically it is used by Britain as well as a tax haven within the remote island chain to attract rulers’ looted funds and funds of companies fleeing tax laws and money of criminal "mafia" gangs especially Russian ones. Therefore, for all of the above, the island of Cyprus is a special place to the British. Thus, Britain has been able cunningly to overcome all US interventions to inherit this vital colony of Britain. Greece was the American winning card to access Cyprus, but Britain was able to overcome it through Turkey and its agents in Cyprus, we can say that the issue of Cyprus internationally was over the past few decades the issue of heated conflict between the followers of America and followers of Britain. America’s main goal is to remove British military bases in Cyprus and take its place, and it was taking advantage of the efforts of the United Nations and using it as means to achieve its goals. Britain was capable through its cunningness to overcome the American obstacles and it succeeded in maintaining a divided Cyprus to justify the presence of its military bases, and prevented the full implementation of America's plans in Cyprus... Britain nearly achieved its goals once and for all in maintaining its bases through the coup attempt to create a regime in Turkey, that is loyal to it, instead of the current pro-American regime... Although the attempt failed, but it sounded a warning bell to both the American and British sides regarding the Turkish regime and its impact on the Cyprus issue.
Fourth, overlapping aspects:
1-    Influential Islamic movements in the region:
The Syrian revolution was the problem of the decade for the US policy in the region, because it was not able to eliminate its danger, despite the length of the years, and despite the many American tools used: from Iran and its supporters and followers, and Russia and its military power, Turkey and the Gulf States and their contacts and financial support, and Geneva and international envoys. America was certainly aware that they are fighting Islam in Syria, which is a new experience for the US policy on this scale. It gave it grey hairs as stated in Obama's statement on 04/08/2016 in a press conference after his meeting with the National Security Council and military leaders in the Pentagon, "I am pretty confident that a big chunk of my grey hair comes out of my Syria meetings." (Russia Today, 05/08/2016)
America and the West have taken Islamic movements in the region seriously, and that the success of Muslims in establishing their state has become a concern to America and the West, and the Turkish army stationed in Cyprus, "about 30 thousand" would be dangerous for them. They take Islamic movements to establish a Khilafah seriously, and the presence of the Turkish Muslim army on the island at that time will be the spearhead of sending it back to its origin, an Islamic country since it was opened during the era of the righteous Khaleefah Othman, may Allah be pleased with him ... That is why they see the need to take out this army and to speed up negotiations to achieve this purpose.
2- A new energy factor: Since the discovery of natural gas on the coast of occupied Palestine in 2009 and the start of its exploitation for business by the Jewish state in 2013 ... Greece, Turkey and Cyprus recently aspired to extract energy there too ... all this made the energy factor one of the new engines of the crisis in Cyprus, it gave it a greater momentum, as follows:
A- The technical data of the gas fields discovered off the coast of the eastern Mediterranean show that they provide a reasonable amount of gas, enough to form the diversification of gas imports to Europe, thus significantly alleviating their dependence on Russian gas. The Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, and the Ministers of Communications and Business, and Agricultural Resources and Environment have said, publicly on various occasions "that the Cypriot gas reserves may allow Europe to diversify their sources away from Russia." (Noon Post, 11/11/2014), “and the Greek authorities explore for oil and gas in Levitan field to the south-east of Nicosia, that field that contains 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 122 billion cubic feet of natural gas. To counter step the Greek move, Ankara signed an agreement with the Turkish Cypriot authorities to explore for oil in the northern coast ...” (dot Egypt, 27/04/2015)
B- Both Greece and Greek Cyprus are suffering from severe economic crises and hope to replenish their treasury with gas revenues from the coast of Cyprus, through the Greek transport route to Europe, and Greece becomes a transit country for Cyprus’s gas and the Jewish entity to Europe.
C- But these Greek Cypriot dreams as well as the Europe’s are nearly shattered by Turkey, as it is directly hindering the exploration operations for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus. Since Greek Cypriot cooperation with the Jewish entity began in the exploration and exploitation of energy in the eastern Mediterranean, Turkey stood against Greece and Cyprus in the drilling operations and has enhanced its marine control. And in direct response to energy exploration operations, Turkey signed an agreement to explore for energy with Turkish Cyprus, not only in the sea area between the two countries but in the south near the southern Cypriot Aphrodite field, Turkey has threatened to dig there, which will ignite a dispute between them. Turkey does not see a way to explore without solving the Cyprus issue in accordance with the American project of negotiations, and the Cypriot exploration does not go ahead only after the end of the negotiations... This Turkish position also confirms what was announced by Turkish President Erdogan that "the insistence of the Greek Cypriot authorities on oil exploration, aims not only to sabotage the negotiating process between Cypriots..." (dot Egypt, 27/4/2015) i.e. Turkey wants to make gas exploration and its investment linked to the final solution, i.e. pushing the parties to resolve the issue, especially in the recent period where there was a mounting interest in the exploration by the parties. All this accelerates the subject of negotiations to reach a solution that would make exploration possible without disputes.
Fifth: From the above it is clear to see the new developments that led to the road of the Cyprus negotiations in a stronger pace and more speed, and they are as follows:
1- The military coup attempt in Turkey: the enormity of the threat posed by this attempt to the US influence in Turkey and the region made US President Obama hold an emergency meeting on 16/07/2016 of the American National Security Council following the coup attempt. This meeting was an indication of the great importance attached by the United States for its influence in Turkey, due to Turkey’s broad impact on its surroundings. Since the failure of the military coup of President Erdogan announced a state of emergency in the country, and began cleansing, and still is, the army and the state of the followers of Britain. Such purges weaken England's position in Turkey, lose their grip over the army leaders in Turkey, who stopped the United States moves to discredit them in Cyprus... Thus the American way to resolve the Cyprus crisis in accordance with the plan, the so-called "Annan" plan to unite Cyprus, the road has become smoother after the pursuing of the British men in the army who crippled the American solution in Cyprus and supported Britain to maintain their bases in Cyprus ... and the greater the pursuing of the British men the more feasible are the American negotiations.
2- The Islamic movements in the region: As mentioned above, America and the West are taking the Islamic movements to establish The Khilafah seriously, and the presence of the Turkish Muslim army on the island at that time will be the spearhead of sending it back to its origin, an Islamic country since it was opened during the reign of the righteous Khaleefah Othman, may Allah be pleased with him ... That's why they see the need to take out this army and speed up negotiations for this purpose.
3- A New energy factor: Looking at this new rising factor shows that it constitutes an economically influential factor in speeding up the solution to the crisis in Cyprus, and removes what hinders this promising economic project, and therefore it has become in the interest of all parties to the Cyprus crisis to find a solution to the crisis there, and to agree on maritime economic quotas and gas transfer lines, and speed up the negotiations more seriously ...
Sixth: Due to the impact of these factors the parties were pushed actively at the end of last year and beginning of this year 2017 as follows:
A- The first round of Cyprus negotiations was held in the Swiss Mont Pelerin from 7-11 of November 2016, the second round was conducted in the same city in the same month from 20-21 November 2016. Both rounds did not succeed in achieving anything.
B- The third round of negotiations was conducted with efforts to find a political solution to the island of Cyprus, in Geneva, Switzerland, on 9th January under the United Nations’ sponsorship. The negotiations centered on six titles: "the economic problem of Cyprus, the European Union, ownership, immigration and power-sharing, land and security, and guarantees."
C- On 10/1/2017 another meeting of the parties concerned was held regarding Cyprus in Geneva, it was at a high diplomatic level, with the presence of the President of the Turkish Cypriot republic, Mustafa Akinci, and the President of the Greek Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades
D- On 12/1/2017, the Cyprus negotiations were concluded at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, between Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci and his Greek Cypriot counterpart Nicos Anastasiades. The UN envoy to Cyprus Espen Barth Eide said, “We've had constructive talks over the past three days, and added that a lot of problems were resolved that have remained unresolved for a long time and that progress has become faster, according to him.
E- The Cypriot President said: “President of Cyprus, in turn, said at a news conference on Friday that the political dialogue for the first time achieved a serious progress, as the discussion began to revolve around the core really matters ...” (Russia Today, 13/01/2017)
F- Then two rounds were held on18-20/1/2017 after which a final statement was issued, it stated:
“According to the Special Adviser on Cyprus to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Espen Barth Eide, that the workshop groups completed its work that discussed the subject of the guarantees successfully. It is reported that workshop groups discussed security and guarantees in all dimensions ... and we can say that the issue of security and guarantees were perceived as preparatory technical acts for the next stage after four meetings lasted for two days ... it is worth noting that the parties had agreed to hold a summit that will be represent the parties in higher levels in the next phase, which means that the third phase will continue from the Geneva negotiations to a summit that will involve the prime ministers of five countries. It is expected that the President of the Northern Cyprus Turkish Republic Mustafa Akinci and Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades to discuss issues related to the political conference quintet hearing, through a meeting on the 26th of the current month of January in Nicosia...
 A delegation headed by Deputy Undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry, Ambassador Ahmed Mukhtar Gun represented Turkey in the conference, while a delegation headed by the negotiator Ozdil Nami, the Turkish part of the island. The Deputy Prime Minister Tugrul Turkes left to Geneva to gain information about the work of the Geneva-based working group within the framework of Cyprus negotiations. The Cyprus negotiations consist of the six main headings: the economy, the European Union and the ownership and management and the sharing of power and territory and security and guarantees ...” (Arabic TRT, 20/1/2017)
Seventh: As for the expected solution sought by America and the Turkish regime loyal to it, the most probable one is a form of a federal state in Cyprus as a first step, so that this state through the United Nations and the United States’ backing can the two British bases in Cyprus, which is the main objective for the wave of the Cyprus negotiations, which began effectively with the beginning of this year. This solution requires the abolition of guarantor states (Britain, Turkey and Greece) and the consequent withdrawal of the Turkish army and soldiers of Greece, and of course the most important the British bases.
But there are some obstacles to this solution, there are real influencing impediments not easy to overcome in a short time, and there are minor obstacles with less effects intended as justification for specific purposes and then they can be overcome.
·     The basic influencing obstacles basic is the withdrawal of Britain's from its two bases on the island:(Akrotiri and Dhekelia), Akrotiri base is situated in the southwest of Cyprus, while Dhekelia base is in the east, they are both very important to Britain like a pivot to a spoke. It will seek every effort to disable the solution that prevent its presence there... It may try to postpone or impede the solution through dodgy means, like putting its presence in the bases as a condition to accept the American solution. No doubt it is aware of the extreme difficulty that will make America accept this, especially that Britain has lost a lot of tools of influence inside Turkey, and from Cyprus as a result of the recent purges carried out by Erdogan in the army and other state apparatus.
The other obstacles are the morale for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, because the US solution stipulates this withdrawal, as a preliminary step to embarrass Britain and make it remove its bases on the grounds that the new state of Cyprus cannot have separate forces from the structure of the state, because the two British bases in Cyprus are practically outside the Cypriot state power, even if the reports were saying that Cyprus is composed of four regions: (North Cyprus, and the neutral zone in the middle, and South Cyprus, and the two British bases), and Britain at the moment want this tense divided situation to continue and serve as a justification for the continuation of the bases, so finding one state in Cyprus or a federal state as the project of the US solution is a preliminary step to remove the military bases. Hence the eye-catching statements about the cancellation of the guarantor States and their influence at the beginning of the current year's negotiations, the Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades said, “It is necessary to the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus, to reach a solution to end decades of division on the island.” Anastasiades told reporters in Geneva that "we agree on the Turkish army's withdrawal which numbers about 30 thousand troops in Cyprus"” (BBC, 13/1/2017).
 As for the statements of Erdogan as a response to him after Friday prayer, on January 13: “Greece must not expect a solution to the issue of the island without a Turkish role, as a guarantor state. Turkey will remain in Cyprus. The possibility of the Turkish military leaving Cyprus is out of the question.” (Russia Today, 13/1/2017)  This Turkish position is not a sincere one, but it is a matter of "refusal to accept"! His subsequent statement on the same day invalidates the earlier statement, Reuters quoted him as saying on the same day: “Erdogan said "it is impossible to completely withdrawal the Turkish soldiers and we previously discussed this. If such a thing is a subject of discussion then both sides should withdraw their soldiers from there. "Greece has a battalion of about 1,100 troops in Cyprus. Erdogan said that there is a plan to keep the 650 Turkish soldiers and 950 Greek soldiers on the island after a settlement ...” (13/01/2017). Therefore he agreed to withdraw for this uneven settlement! This is confirmed by the words of the Turkish Cypriot leader, who was quoted by Reuters on the same day, i.e. 01/13/2017: (The Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci said on Friday: "There should be no taboos in the talks hosted by the United Nations for the reunification of Cyprus," he added, "If we say that these issues are a taboo and we cannot even discuss it, and that everything should remain as it is, then this will not lead to success." Therefore, these statements are not real, but to create an atmosphere in the negotiations that will allow the discussion of subject of military forces withdrawal from the island as an entry point to discuss the two bases.

In conclusion: The negotiations this time are more serious than the previous ones, and America wants to create as a result a federal state on the island that leads to the removal of the bases from British sovereignty. Britain on the other hand wants to maintain the status quo to remain in control of the bases, and is not damaged by any other solution if it is to keep the two bases
Eighth: The right Islamic solution to the Cyprus issue: it is that it is completely annexed to Turkey, Cyprus is an Islamic country, and must be attached to its origins, Turkey, the island of Cyprus is an Islamic island, and was opened by the Muslims at the time of the third righteous Khaleefah Uthman (ra). The European Crusaders occupied it in the first Crusader wars waged on the Islamic countries, but it was liberated by Muslims later and it was returned back to the origin as a Muslim land. It was under the rule of the Ottoman State like all other Muslim countries because it was the Khilafah. The British declared official control over it in the First World War and declared its annexation to Britain, which is false and is a brutal aggression that has no value or weight. Muslims in Turkey and outside Turkey consider Cyprus as part of their land that must be a fully returned to the lands of Islam... This is the right solution for Cyprus, i.e. to go back to its origin an Islamic country. It was opened by the Wali of Ash-Sham Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, after being authorized by the Khaleefah Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, in the year 28 AH, and it was one of the first marine invasions of the Muslims. Many companions of the Prophet (saw) took part in the invasion, including Abu Dhar and Ubada bin As-Samit with his wife Umm Haram and Abu Ad-Darda and Shaddad ibn Aws, Allah bless them all, the tomb of the noble companion Umm Haram is one of the attractions in Cyprus. When it was opened it was a decisive defeat for the State of the Byzantine and its emperor on the one hand, and on the other hand it was the beginning of the era of the Islamic maritime fleet that grew after that triumphant conquest.
This is the solution and it is the Truth:
﴿فَمَاذَا بَعْدَ الْحَقِّ إِلَّا الضَّلَالُ فَأَنَّى تُصْرَفُونَ
“And what can be beyond truth except error? So how are you averted?” [Yunus: 32]
 And the solution is not what is planned by the United States or Britain, in other words the solution is not splitting Cyprus into two states, whether one part was annexed to Turkey and the other to Greece or if they are not annexed at all. Also the solution is not becoming a federal state ruled by the Greeks, nor to be a single state ruled by the Greeks as well, It is wrong to allow any Islamic country to be under the authority of the Kuffar:
﴿وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
 “…and never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them]” [An-Nisa’: 141]
Cyprus will return, Allah willing, as it was an Islamic country, days are in changing state, many hands controlled Cyprus, but the end will always be with the righteous ones.
﴿وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
“And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know” [Yusuf: 21]

24 Rabii’ II 1438 AH

22/1/2017 CE

Monday, February 13, 2017

American President Trump is not more of a criminal than his predecessors

None of them have spared any effort in their maliciousness against Islam and Muslims
The White House announced that the new president (Donald Trump) is open to the idea of ​​carrying out joint operations with Russia against the " Islamic state Organisation" in Syria. And prior to this, the Pentagon denied the Russian Defense Ministry report that the US along with Russia jointly carried out airstrikes against the " Islamic state Organisation." On Sunday. He (Spicer) said that (Trump) informed the US Secretary of Defense (James Mattis) that changes will occur in how to deal with " Islamic state Organisation," and added: "During this time (Trump) will continue to hold discussions regardiong joint military operations and what he wants from them”
Observers all over the world spoke about the arrival of Trump to the White House, and it was mostly pessimistic; they all thought that the new "Gladiator" will not have any friend, as if his predecessors of American presidents had any friend other than the capitalists, those who finance them to get them to the White House!
Since the United States launched the Crusade against Islam and Muslims on the 17th of January 1991 AD, it has not stopped in the killing and in the prosecution of targeting Islam and Muslims, neither in the occupation of Afghanistan after the killing and displacement of millions and devastating destruction and the same followed in Iraq, and America has not stopped for a day since that date in conducting military operations in various countries of the Islamic world, To the extent that it has created armies of mercenaries to carry out suicide operations and liquidations such as: "Black Water" and "XE", and the last criminal President,  Obama, whose reign was characterized by the Electronic killing using unmanned aircraft, along with the use of mercenary armies, most of the Muslim countries were not safe from these killings, starting from Afghanistan, Pakistan and in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and ending with Libya and other countries.
As for the US role in Syria, along with supporting the tyrannical regime of the tyrant Bashar in secret and in public, the Americans didnt stopaerial bombing the moujahieden sites even for a day, while it continued to conduct military operations to undermine the faithful in the Syrian revolution, that is why there is no real meaning to what the White House issued saying that Trump was prepared to participate in military operations against the IS organisation, since it never stopped targeting sincere revolutions under this rationale, and America wont and will never target any of their accomplice against the sincere efforts of the revolution, and it was clear in the exchange of accusations between Maliki and Kerry about who created Daesh, was it America as was said by its agent Maliki? Or was it Maliki as was said by his master Kerry? The truth is that the organization did not exist but to justify undermining the sincere revolution.
There is no crime that the devil (Shaytan) thinks of and it is committed by America against Islam and Muslims, so those of understanding will not be puzzled in what could be done by Trump in Syria and against Islam and Muslims, he will continue on the path of crime that has been adopted by the criminal American Civilization, and the only difference between him and his predecessors is that he discloses what is in his heart of hatred, he is also described as thick headed and he has no diplomatic experience, and does not understand except for the language of turf wrestling, while his predecessors from the presidents have been as the poet said, "It gives from the tip of the tongue sweetness, while he he will work his way around you, just as the fox does."
The Muslims must advance beyond the role of the observer as to who comes to the White House, and keeping up their hopes with the one who declares that he will be fair amongst them and being pessimistic with the who declares the contrary, to carrying Islam and presenting it to the whole world includingAmerica, as an alternative Civilization to come out of the tyranny and oppression of capitalism to the justice of the Khilafah on the methodology of prophethood, for the White House will soon by conquered by the Khilafah (established on the footsteps of the prophethood), Inshallah, that will appoint a  leader (Wali) who will govern America with Islam which for very long has been maligned and lied against by the criminal rulers who inhabited it, for this House will continue to be a den of evil to those successive to it, they do not observe concerning the people any pact of kinship or covenant of protection.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb Ut Tahrir by
Bilal al-Muhajir – Pakistan

The Plan behind the Apparent Madness of Trump’s Decisions in the White House

During Donald Trump’s first week as US president, he enacted controversial campaign pledges sending shock waves around the world. Exactly as promised, Trump banned entry to the US from seven Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended refugee admissions for 120 days, he began repealing and replacing ‘Obamacare’, he cancelled the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, and he ordered the building of a huge wall on the Mexican border coupled with arrogant promises that Mexico “would pay for the wall”, even though the Mexican president refused this and cancelled his planned visit to the US. Furthermore, much of the rhetoric from the White House during this first week was wild, and US policy toward China, Russia, Europe and international organizations such as NATO and the UN is in doubt.
The most visible agenda of the new administration appears to be the white Christian “America first” nationalism of the ‘alternative right’, while the traditional conservative Republican agenda that dominates the US Congress takes second place. Trump has established supporters close to the alternative right at the heart of the White House. These include his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who ran Trump’s online media campaign and whose Orthodox Jewish upbringing helped to protect Trump from charges of anti-Semitism during the election campaign. The White House Senior Advisor Kellyanne Conway, and the chief strategist Stephen Bannon represent the alternative right even more openly. They were appointed on the same day to lead the Trump campaign and have a long association with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who were major donors behind Trump’s campaign. Robert and Rebekah Mercer also fund an ‘alternative right’ media site called Breitbart News, whose editor was Stephen Bannon before he was appointed to Trump’s campaign, and they issued a statement to the Washington Post in October, which warned of an “apocalyptic choice that America faces on November 8th. We have a country to save and there is only one person who can save it. We, and Americans across the country and around the world, stand steadfastly behind Donald J. Trump.”
The White House is now dominated by a faction that threatens traditional conservatives on key issues such as globalization, free-trade and Russia. An example of the tension in the Republican Party came after Trump’s joint press conference with the UK Prime Minister, which left open the possibility that sanctions against Russia might be lifted. Later, Republican Senator John McCain, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, demanded: “For the sake of America’s national security and that of our allies, I hope President Trump will put an end to this speculation and reject such a reckless course.” What, therefore, is holding the conservatives and the alternative right together when much threatens to divide them?
Clues can be found in a book, published a couple of weeks ago, by Richard Haass, who is the president of the highly influential, bipartisan “Council on Foreign Relations.” Richard Haass is critical of Trump’s rejection of free trade and globalization, and yet his book, “A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order” explains that the world is becoming more dangerous and multi-polar and that the US will need a new version of the current concept of sovereignty.  Formerly, intervention in a sovereign state was justified only on the basis of human rights, but now Haass argues that globalization mandates a greater right to intervene in the affairs of other states.
The rhetoric of Trump is dangerous according to Richard Haass, but perhaps it serves Haass’s vision, as the chaos Trump is creating by challenging noisily the ‘old order’ could put the last nail in the coffin of 400 years of Western theories of statecraft since the Treaty of Westfalia, and a new order could be built upon the ruins of Trump’s ‘alternative right’ adventure if it is taken over from him at the critical moment. More likely, the aware US politicians and capitalists are working to gradually realign Trump’s administration and the traditionalists to their own vision and will compromise over free-trade. The current edition of Foreign Affair, which is a policy magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, indicates a bold engagement with Trump. The article by Doug Bandow, entitled: “Trump and U.S. Alliances” is particularly relevant where it says: “Trump should adopt a more ambitious agenda. He should call on other nations not just to do more on their own behalf but also to take over responsibility for their own defense.”

Dr Abdullah Robin
Written for Ar-Rayah Newspaper - Issue 115

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Hanafi Fuqaha on Public Property

The concept of public property, and its opposing category of private property, is well known today, due primarily to the centrality of the latter to liberal and capitalist thought and the former to socialist thought. However, the notion that certain things are owned by individuals, giving them exclusive disposal rights thereof, whilst others are for the common disposal of people collectively long precedes modernity. Modern thinkers were not the first to come up with these ideas. They but adopted them within or for certain broader ideological paradigms. John Locke, for instance, makes private property central to his (liberal) political theory, where for Karl Marx the abolition of private ownership of the means of production is central to ending capitalist exploitation.
Islam has its own notions of private and public property far removed from the associated ideological frameworks of modernity. Private property is neither the grounds for all individual rights on the basis of which humans move from a “state to nature” to civil society nor something inherently evil that needs to be done away with. Rather, on the Islamic view, all things are created by Allah (swt) and are His property first and foremost, from where they become the property of human beings by the delegation and permission of Allah (swt), affording them the right to dispose of them within parameters set by Allah (swt).
Within this framework, Islam affirms a place for both private ownership [mulk khass], defined broadly as the permission of the lawgiver (Allah) for an individual to have exclusive rights of disposal of a thing, and public ownership [mulk ‘aam], defined broadly as the permission of the lawgiver for a thing to be commonly benefited from by people at large with no one having exclusive rights. Both are discussed by classical Ulama (scholars). In this article, we look in particular at how the Hanafi fuqaha discussed public property.
The esteemed and erudite Hanafi faqih of the sixth century Burhan al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani (d. 593) says in al-Hidaya,
"لا يجوز للإمام أن يقطع ما لا غنى بالمسلمين عنه كالملح والآبار التي يستقي الناس منها"
“It is not allowed for the ruler to grant (to a person/s) that which the Muslims collectively are in need of          such as salt mines and large wells from which the people irrigate their lands.” [1]
In commenting on this the great Hanafi faqih and muhaddith of the ninth century Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni (d. 855) elaborates on a numbers of points in al-Binaya Sharh al-Hidaya. [2] First, he notes that “that which the Muslims collectively are in need of” is everything that they cannot do with as a community. Second, he explains that the ruler granting something [iqtaa’], like a piece of land, is when he allots it to someone making it their private ownership. Third, he mentions that the jurists are agreed on this point, there being no difference of opinion on it. Fourth, he adduces as proof the hadith related by Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud:
عن أبيض بن حمال: «أنه وفد إلى النبي r فاستقطعه الملح الذي بمأرب، فقطعه فلما أن ولى قال رجل من المجلس: أتدري ما قطعت له؟ إنما قطعت له الماء العد. قال: فانتزع منه»
From Abyad bin Hammal (ra) that he went to the Prophet (saw) and asked him to allocate the salt reserve in Ma’rib to him so he (saw) did so. When he left a man from the gathering said, “Do you know what you just allocated to him? You allocated to him an unending (replenishable) [‘idd] reserve.” So he (saw) took it back from him.” [3]
The unending reserve [al-ma’ al-‘idd], Ayni says, quoting the linguist Asma’i, is the continuous one [al-ma’ al-da’im] that keeps producing its content like the water of a spring or well. Finally, ‘Ayni notes that based on this, “our scholars said that what the shepherds and pastoralists, then the rulers, take for giving access to water, pastureland, mountains, mines and mineral deposits, and salt reserves is from suht”. Suht is haram wealth gained through illegal means. Taking money for giving access to what people should have open access to is of this type because those taking it are acting as if it is private ownership or as if they have great disposal rights than others, whereas they do not. Commenting on this hadith in his commentry on Tirmidhi, Allama Anwar Shah Kashmir (d. 1353) also notes that the granting of mines to individuals by the ruler is not allowed according to Hanafi fuqaha. [4]
What this hadith establishes is that replenishable reserves and mines are not allowed to be privately owned by individuals. They are for the common benefit of all people, i.e., public property. Everyone has the right to benefit from them. The narration of the same hadith in Ibn Majah makes this clearer:
It was narrated from Abyad bin Hammal that he asked (the Prophet (saw)) for a salt reserve called the Ma’rib Dam to be given to him, and it was given to him. Then Aqra bin Habis al-Tamimi (ra) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “O Messenger of Allah (saw), I used to come to the salt reserve during Jahilliya and it was in a land in which there was no water, and whoever came to it took from it. It was (plentiful) like flowing water.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) asked Abyad bin Hammal to give back what he was allotted of the salt reserve. He said: “I give it to you on the basis that you make it charity given by me.” The Messenger of Allah said: » هُوَ مِنْكَ صَدَقَةٌ وَهُوَ مِثْلُ الْمَاءِ الْعِدِّ مَنْ وَرَدَهُ أَخَذَهُ  ‏« “It is a charity from you, and it is like flowing water, whoever comes to it may take from it.” [5]
In other words, natural occurring resources in large quantities are a common property of people who may all come to it and benefit from it. No one can own them and exclude others from using it.
Imam al-Tumurtashi (d. 1004) relates verbatim the same lines mentioned above from al-Marghinani in Tanwir al-Absar. Commenting on this, the erudite Hanafi faqih of the 11th century, Ala’-Din al-Hasaki (d. 1088) says in al-Durr al-Mukhtar:

“Know that the ruler is not allowed to allocate to individuals that which the Muslims collectively are in need of, such as things like surface mines and mineral deposits [ma’adin dhahira]: that whose content which Allah has placed inside the Earth is apparent such as mines of salt, antimony, bitumen and oil. Likewise, wells other than those which are dug or made by effort and thereby owned. If he does so, the grant will be invalid and both the grantee and others will be equal with respect of benefiting from them. If the grantee prevents others from it, he is transgressing by such prevention.” [6]
The other primary, and even more explicit, text on public property is the statement of the Prophet (saw),
«الناس شركاء في ثلاث في الماء والكلأ والنار»
“The people are partners in three things: water, pastures and fire.” [7]

Many of the Hanafi fuqaha discussed this hadith and used it as proof for designating certain things as being for the common benefit of people. Shams al-A’imma al-Sarkhasi (d. 483), one of the early Hanafi authorities, says in his al-Mabsut:
ولو استأجر بئرا شهرين ليسقي منها أرضه وغنمه لم يجز، وكذلك النهر والعين؛ لأن المقصود هو الماء وهو عين لا يجوز أن يتملك بعقد الإجارة، ولأن الماء أصل الإباحة ما لم يحرزه الإنسان بإنائه وهو مشترك بين الناس كافة قال r: «الناس شركاء في الثلاث في الماء والكلأ والنار» فالمستأجر فيه والآخر سواء؛ فلهذا لا يستوجب عليه أجر بسببه.
“If one leased a well for two months to irrigate his land and feed his sheep, this would not be allowed. Likewise, rivers and springs. This is because in all these cases the object being contracted over is water, which is a commodity that is not allowed to be owned through a lease. Further, the original hukm for water is permissibility (for all people to use) so long as someone does not take some in his container (then what he takes becomes his property). It is common property of all people, as the Prophet (saw) said, “The people are partners in three things: water, pastures and fire.” [8]

Elsewhere in the book, he elaborates on the hadith as follows:

وعن رسول الله r: قال «المسلمون شركاء في ثلاث في الماء والكلإ والنار» وفي الروايات: الناس شركاء في ثلاث، وهذا أعم من الأول ففيه إثبات الشركة للناس كافة: المسلمين والكفار في هذه الأشياء الثلاثة، وهو كذلك، وتفسير هذه الشركة في المياه التي تجري في الأودية، والأنهار العظام كجيحون وسيحون، وفرات، ودجلة، ونيل فإن الانتفاع بها بمنزلة الانتفاع بالشمس، والهواء ويستوي في ذلك المسلمون، وغيرهم، وليس لأحد أن يمنع أحدا من ذلك، وهو بمنزلة الانتفاع بالطرق العامة من حيث التطرق فيها. ومرادهم من لفظة الشركة بين الناس بيان أصل الإباحة، والمساواة بين الناس في الانتفاع لا أنه مملوك لهم فالماء في هذه الأودية ليس بملك لأحد.
The Prophet – Allah bless him and grant him peace – said, “Muslims are partners in three things: water, pastures and fire.” In other narrations he said, “The people are partners in three things…” which is more general than the first narration since the latter affirms the partnership for all people, Muslims and kuffar alike, in these three things. This is the correct position. The meaning of partnership in the waters that flow in valleys and great rivers like the Jeyhun (Amu Darya), Seyhun (Syr Darya), Euphrates, Tigris and Nile is that benefiting from them is like benefiting from the Sun and air, for the Muslims and others alike. No one can exclude others from it. It is like benefiting from public roads in terms of travelling on them. The intent of the word “partnership” [sharika] of people is to clarify that the original rule is permissibility and all people have the equal right in benefiting from it, not that they all jointly own it. The water in these rivers and the like is not ownership of anyone.” [9]
Imam ‘Ala al-Dinal-Kasani (d. 587) of the sixth century also discusses this matter in his famous Bada’i al-Sana’i, saying:
لأن الماء في الأصل خلق مباحا لقول النبي r «النَّاسُ شُرَكَاءُ فِي ثَلَاثٍ الْمَاءِ وَالْكَلَأِ وَالنَّارِ» «الناس شركاء في ثلاث الماء والكلأ والنار» والشركة العامة تقتضي الإباحة إلا أنه إذا جعل في إناء وأحرزه به فقد استولى عليه وهو غير مملوك لأحد فيصير مملوكا للمستولي كما في سائر المباحات الغير المملوكة، وإذا لم يوجد ذلك بقي على أصل الإباحة الثابتة بالشرع فلا يجوز بيعه؛ لأن محل البيع هو المال المملوك وليس له أن يمنع الناس من الشفة - وهو الشرب بأنفسهم - وسقي دوابهم منه؛ لأنه مباح لهم.
“Water in origin has been created permissible for all due to the statement of the Prophet (s), “The people are partners in three things: water, pastures and fire.” General partnership necessitates permissibility. However, when anyone takes some of it in a container for himself then he has established his ownership over it since previously it was unowned, as is the case with all other unowned permissible things. If this does not happen, the origin ruling of permissibility, established by the Sharia, remain and hence selling it is not allowed. This is because only the owned thing can be sold. Further, no one can prevent others from drinking therefrom or feeding their animals, since it is permissible for all.” [10]
Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Zayla’i (d. 743) says in Tabyin al-Haqa’iq:
لا يجوز بيع المراعي ولا إجارتها والمراد به الكلأ دون رقبة الأرض؛ لأن بيع الأرض وإجارتها جائز إذا كان مالكا لها، وإنما لا يجوز بيع الكلأ وإجارته؛ لأنه ليس بمملوك له إذ لا يملكه بنباته في أرضه ما لم يحرزه لقوله r «المسلمون شركاء في ثلاثة: في الماء والكلأ والنار» رواه أحمد وأبو داود ورواه ابن ماجه من حديث ابن عباس وزاد فيه «وثمنه حرام» وهو محمول على ما إذا لم يحرزه، وقال r «لا يمنع الماء والنار والكلأ» رواه ابن ماجه ومعناه أن لهم الانتفاع بشرب الماء وسقي الدواب والاستقاء من الآبار والحياض والأنهار المملوكة.
Grass and pasture [mara’ii] that grows of its own accord is not allowed to be sold or leased. This refers to kala’, as opposed to the neck of the land. This is because sale and lease of the land by its owner is allowed since he owns it. This does apply to the pasture since he does not own it, so long as he does not take it for his own use. This is due to the statement of the Prophet (s), “Muslims are partners in three things: water, pastures and fire”, related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud. Ibn Majah also relates it from Ibn Abbas (ra) with the addition, “and its price is haram” which is understood as applying it so long as he does not take it for his own use. He (s) also said, “Water, fire and pastures are not prevented”, related by Ibn Majah, which means that people have a right to benefit from these things by drinking the water and feeding their animals, and irrigating their land from wells, ponds and (small) owned rivers. [11]
وشرط لجواز الانتفاع به أن لا يضر بالعامة فإن كان يضر بالعامة بأن يميله بالكري أو نصب الرحى فليس له ذلك؛ لأن الانتفاع بالمباح لا يجوز إلا إذا كان لا يضر بأحد كالانتفاع بالشمس والقمر والهواء
“The permissibility of benefiting from it is conditional on not harming the public (their benefit of it). Thus, if he benefits from it in way that harms others, such as changing the direction of a river by digging or erecting a raha, this is not allow. This is because benefiting from the permissible things is not allowed except in a way that does not harm others, as is the case with benefiting from the sun, moon and air.” [12]
The great Shami scholar of the 13th century, Muhammad Amin Ibn Abidin (d. 1252) of Damascus, who is perhaps the most renowned of the latter Hanafi fuqaha, particularly in the Subcontinent also discusses the matter at length in his Radd al-Muhtar (also known as Hashiyat Ibn Abidin). He claries a number of points [13]:

1.  The partnership (of the three categories mentioned in the hadith) is a partnership of permissibility [ibaha] not ownership [milk]. Everyone has the right to benefit from it. Whoever takes part of for his use that part is his ownership to the exclusion of others, which he can dispose of by any mean of disposal that is allowed for an owner.
2.  Pasture [kala’] is that which grows and spreads and has no trunk such as lemongrass, while trees as that which have a trunk. Three types:
a. Pasture growing in an area not owned by anyone – all people are partners in the right to graze their animals on this or to cut and gather it for their use.
b. Pasture growing in owned land without the effort of the owner – it is likewise open to use by all. However, the owner has the right to prevent entry on to his land.
c. Pasture growing in owned land with the effort of the owner – this is his private property.
3. Wood in areas not owned by anyone has the same rule and can be cut and gathered for use by anyone.
4. Fire in the hadith refers to fire lit by people, so if someone lights a fire in an open land, others have a right to benefit from it by using its light, drying their cloths from it or seeking heat from it. (According to other fuqaha, fire refers to the firewood used to produce fire).
Finally, the Majallat al-Ahkam al-Adliyya also lists those properties that the Shari’ah considers public properties. In its tenth book on partnership or shared ownership [sharikaat], the fourth chapter is on partnership of permissibility [shirkat al-ibaha] which lists and discusses the rules relating to public properties, starting with mention of water, pastures and fire in article 1234. [14]
Thus, in summary, three categories of things are public property according to the Hanafi school of fiqh: one, all that which the people collectively are in need of like wells; two, natural mineral deposits occurring in large quantities; and three, water, pasture and fire as mentioned in the hadith and described above. These being public property means that all people have equal rights to benefit from them. All people are equal partners in them in the meaning that they are equally permissible for them all. No one can be excluded from utilising them and no one can profit from them as it were his private wealth. In turn, these cannot be privatised or granted to individuals or companies such that they make a profit from them.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Uthman Badar

[1] Marghinani, al-Hidaya Sharh Biyadat al-Mubtadi, Dar al-Ihya: Beirut, 4:384.
[2] Ayni, Badr al-Din, al-Binaya Sharh al-Hidaya, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya: Beirut, 12:292-3.
[3] Abu Dawud, 3046; Tirmidhi, 1380.
[4] Kashmiri, Anwar Shah, al-'Urf al-Shadhi Sharh Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Dar al-Turath: Beirut, 3:101.
[5] Ibn Majah, 2569.
[6] Haskafi, 'Ala al-Din, al-Durr al-Mukthar wa Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, Dar al-Fikr: Beirut, 6:434.
[7] Abu Dawud, 3477; Ibn Majah, 2472; Ahmad, 23082.
[8] Sarkhasi, al-Mabsut, Dar al-Ma'rifa: Beirut, 16:33.
[9] Ibid., 23:163.
[10] Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i fi Tartib al-Shara'i, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 6:188-9.
[11] Zayla'i, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa'iq, Matba'a Kubra Amiriyya: Cairo, 4:48)
[12] Ibid., 6:39.
[13] Ibn Abideen, al-Durr al-Mukthar wa Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, Dar al-Fikr: Beirut, 6:440.

[14] Majallat al-Ahkam al-Adliyya, Karkhana Tijarat Kutub: Karachi, 1:238.