While Bashar the Tyrant of Al-Sham vows to facilitate the UN team's mission to destroy the chemical weapons, which required spending a huge amount of the Ummah's wealth in Syria to prepare them, he emphasized in an interview on the Italian television channel Rainews24, that the primary goal of the Syrian state today is focused on getting rid of the terrorists, their terrorism and ideology, accusing them of being an obstacle in the way of disposing the chemical weapons.

Hizb ut Tahrir/ Indonesia: Women's Roundtable Discussion

News:
On Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013; BBC reported that according to the US officials, 75 activists of Al-Qaida still exist in Afghanistan. Thus, it is necessary that we continue operation, investigation and arresting them. While Karzai disagrees with that, in the meantime, dialogue on security - defense pact is apparently suspended between two sides. The real issue of the Afghan side is to define "foreign occupation" and the way that US forces would like stay in Afghanistan in post-2014 Afghanistan.

Comment:
What kind of thought is this, the puppet, tyrant and slave rulers of the Muslim World try to deceive the Ummah at any opportunity they get. How can Afghanistan make a proper standoff with its masters, while it is unable to run the country even for one day based on its own resources? This is why, it is only an effort to deceive the Ummah and a failed attempt of championship at the end of the slavery.

Furthermore, we witnessed the method upon which the Strategic Pact was signed between Afghanistan and the US. That was also a Pact that was signed after a long time of standoff between both sides. But in a way that even the limits of slavery was not considered. Hours before signing the agreement, the US order took-out all Afghan officials in the presidential palace and no Afghan security official was allowed in the palace. All communication lines and wireless signals were cut and desired media outlets were invited to the US Embassy for Afghanistan in Kabul. Obama than in a tight security measures with helicopters moved to the palace from the embassy and signed the agreement with its 12-year old puppet in a very dictatorship manner. Obama didn't even smile at Karzai.

The articles and issues that Karzai insists on them, does make a serious sense to the US. This is because the US based on its colonial ideology tries to sign the agreement in a manner that its important points should be left completely unclear. For instance, how much will be paid to the Afghan government as a financial aid in providing bases to the US? How will the US conduct its military operation from the bases in post-2014 Afghanistan? What should be the case with Diplomatic and Judicial immunity? In order to enforce and mobilize ANSF, which kinds of military equipment will be provided to the Afghan government? How should be the term "foreign invasion" defined and how will the US defend the territorial integrity of Afghanistan. And so on ... Above are the issues that the 12-year old puppet tries to make a standoff with its masters.
While it was Karzai and his team who provided the conditions and opportunities to the colonial forces to violate the privacy of Afghan homes. To kill them in a very brutal manner, to imprison them, to desecrate the sacred, to make ruin their masjids, to load our educational system with western thoughts and way of life. They even executed an Afghan soldier for the sake of the US and NATO. It was Karzai and his team who signed Strategic pact with the crusaders and the US now tries upon Karzai and his team to bring a team in power, who are committed to the US interests and Global War on Islam (war on terror) more than anyone else.

It is therefore, the artificial standoff between Karzai and the US cannot hide the atrocities and crimes of Karzai and his team. All his actions and agreements will be written on black pages in black color of Afghanistan modern history. The US needed such a corrupt leadership in Afghanistan in order to preserve its regional and long term interests and ambitions.

Finally, the US is committed to sign the Security Pact with Afghan government by this October, even though all logistic and technical issues are finalized. What is remaining is a political and military maneuver so it will bring permanent slavery to the US in Afghanistan. The US apparently declares exit from Afghanistan, while committed to continue its war on Islam under the guise of war on terror and presence of Al-Qaida fighters. This is to micro-manage all the affairs.

But the political and historic dimensions of the Afghanistan issue have proved that without an Islamic solution, all other solutions are in vain. The Afghanistan issue will not be solved based on national and international efforts, however, it will only be solved by an Islamic solution based on their Aqeedah. It is only the Khilafah "Caliphate" and its army who will take Afghanistan under its control crushing all crusaders. It will be a close victory as Hizb ut Tahrir under the leadership of the scholar, Sheikh Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah and the intellectual and political struggle of Hizb ut Tahrir across the globe. And Insha'Allah the Afghanistan issue is to be solved soon by the Khilafah "Caliphate" army and its supporters.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Saifullah Mustanir
Kabul, Wilayah Afghanistan

Question:

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakaatuhu

What is the ruling on employees working in a non-government firm subscribing to the insurance of this firm which has a contract with a health insurance company?

And, what is the ruling on the employee who represents the firm in conducting contracts and negotiations with the private health insurance company?

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Assalam wa Rahmatullah wa Baraakatuhu

My brother, perhaps you can further clarify the question.

In any case, if the meaning of the question is to find out the ruling of health insurance that is provided by the firm to its employees, i.e. the firm deducts part of the employee wage in return to guaranteed medical treatment cover to him and his family. Then this is the answer:

Regarding the health insurance:

If the health insurance was a supplement to the work contract, i.e. one of its conditions and not a freestanding contract, then it is permissible. But if it was a freestanding contract, then it is not permissible.

To detail: the employer pledges in an agreement with the employee, to provide the employee alone or with the members of his family with medical treatment cover in return for deducting part of the employee's wage, this is permissible. Because the original contract is a leasing contract of work and this is known. The commitment of the employer to provide treatment cover to the employee or with his family members is a condition; the conditions attached to contracts of work are not blocked unless there is a text that prevents them, like in the case when it legitimises a Haram or it makes a Haram legitimate (Halal). In this case a text is not needed to make it permissible, for it to become permissible, but it requires a text that does not prevent it. I.e. it is not like in actions, which in origin must be restricted by the Shar' rules, so that it requires a text for it to be permissible.

Instead the conditions in contracts are permissible unless there is a text that prohibits them.

On the authority of Katheer Ibn Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Awf Al Muzni from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

[وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى شُرُوطِهِمْ إِلَّا شَرْطًا حَرَّمَ حَلَالًا أَوْ أَحَلَّ حَرَامًا" [رواه الترمذي"

"Muslims are committed to their conditions except that which makes the prohibited (haram) permissible (halal), and makes the permissible (halal) prohibited (haram)" [Tirmithi]

This is on the one hand and on the other, it is part of the employee's wage which is deducted; on this basis the health insurance by the employer is provided for the employee and his family in return for the deduction of part of his wage; whether it is provided for the employee and his family from the onset or it was for the employee alone and then his family are added to him later on, with the agreement of the employer and the employee and it became part of the contract; all of this is permissible.

As for the freestanding health insurance contract, i.e. if the firm is established and it tells the people that if they want it to provide medical treatment cover when they become ill, then they have to pay it a monthly amount in return for this service; this is not allowed, because it is a contract based on an unknown, since the person does not know when they will fall ill, and whether the illness is serious or not.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

26^th Dhul Qi'ddah1434 AH

02/10/2013 CE

The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page.