Questions:

1. Ghadeer Rooz: Dear Sheikh, nowadays poisonous substances are mixed with alcohol to prevent its intoxication, causing it to become a poisonous substance that is not intoxicating.  The question here is whether the "toxic alcohol produced for perfumes" is impure (Najis), corrupting the purity of the clothing?

2. Abu Mahmoud Al-Khalili: Alcohol contained in perfume is of two types, one of it being intoxicating, known under the name of ethyl alcohol. Now the toxic alcohol is what is known under the name of methyl alcohol. Do they both share the same Islamic ruling?

3. Mustapha Abdul ‘Aal: If it is not drunk, oh Sheikh?

4. Iklil Al-Jabal: Does this ruling apply to pharmaceuticals? Especially as many of the hand cleaning substances in all branches of health services are made up of alcohols, "ethanol + isopropanol", it is the same with mouthwashes. We use alcohol in some of the pharmaceutical productions as solvents or preservatives.

5. Manal Bader: Assalamu Alaikum dear Sheikh,  Barak Allahu Feek as you kindly mentioned above that alcohol if consumed will result in a drunken state...whereas "SD" or denatured alcohol is used in perfumes, deodorants, lotions and facial creams... in these cases they cannot be consumed internally (due to the change of its chemical state). What is the Hukm on their usage? In another situation, the fuel we use for our cars is also derived from alcohol; does this also fall under the Hukm of Haram? Jazak Allahu kul Khair and may Allah protect you.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu

The questions bear similarities, therefore I will brief the answer to them in the following manner:

1. Alcohol has a class called methyl, and I was told that it is not an intoxicant but a deadly poison. Spirit (methanol) is from the class of methyl, taken from sawdust of wood and others, and its drinking causes blindness and can lead to death within days. Based on this, methyl is not Khamr, and the ruling on Khamr is not applied to it in terms of impurity and prohibition, except in terms of the use of methyl as a poison according to the rule of causing damage. Ibn Majah reported from Ubadah Bin As-Samit:

«أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَضَى أَنْ لَا ضَرَرَ وَلَا ضِرَارَ»

"The Messenger of Allah (saw) ruled that there is no damage and no causation of harm."

2. Alcohol has another class called ethyl, which is used in fermented or distilled intoxicating drinks, and medical spirit is of this kind. Furthermore ethyl alcohol is used in the industry as a preservative for some materials, as a drying substance against moisture, as a solvent for some alkali and fats (lubricants), as an antifreeze, as a solvent for some drugs, as a solvent of aromatic substances such as cologne and perfumes, and involved in the manufacture of some carpentry materials. The usage is in three sections:

A. The area in which alcohol is used as a solvent only or as an additive to some materials. Such usage does not cause the alcohol to lose its essence or chemical features, rather it remains in its chemical composition and its intoxicating effect. Hence the usage of alcohol within this capacity is absolutely haram, such as the example of cologne. The usage of cologne is not permissible and it remains impure, because it contains impurity (Najasa) in its mixture and intoxicating alcohol is contained in it in its original form. Therefore it is a substance mixed with Khamr, and Khamr is impure, as proven through the Hadith of Al-Khoshani:

أخرج الدارقطني عَنِ الْخُشَنِيِّ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا نُخَالِطُ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَلَيْسَ لَنَا قُدُورٌ وَلَا آنِيَةٌ غَيْرُ آنِيَتِهِمْ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ: اسْتَغْنُوا عَنْهَا مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَارْحَضُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا ثُمَّ اطْبُخُوا فِيهَا

Ad-Daraqtani reported from Al-Khoshani, who said: "I said: Oh Messenger of Allah, we interact with the Mushrikeen and we do not have vessels other than their vessels." He said: "Then he (saw) said: ‘Avoid it as much as you can, but if you do not find anything else, then rinse it with water, because water will restore its purity, then cook in it."

Hence the Messenger (saw) said: «فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا» "Because water restores its purity" meaning this vessel was impure since it was filled with Khamr and it was purified after its rinsing. This proves that Khamr is impure. The question concerned vessels that were filled with Khamr, as in the narration of Al-Khanshi, reported by Abu Dawud from Abi Tha'laba Al-Khanshi, that he asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said:

ِنَّا نُجَاوِرُ أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ وَهُمْ يَطْبُخُونَ فِي قُدُورِهِمُ الْخِنْزِيرَ وَيَشْرَبُونَ فِي آنِيَتِهِمُ الْخَمْرَ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: إِنْ وَجَدْتُمْ غَيْرَهَا فَكُلُوا فِيهَا وَاشْرَبُوا، وَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا غَيْرَهَا فَارْحَضُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا

"We adjoin the people of the book while they cook pork in their pots and drink Khamr from their vessels." The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "If you find others than drink and eat from them. If you do not find others, then rinse them with water and eat and drink."

Both pork and Khamr are impure. Hence the vessel in which they are placed becomes impure. It has to be washed to restore its purity before its usage.

B. In another section, the essence of alcohol is changed, and it loses its chemical feature of intoxication. Alcohol and the other substances are transformed into new substances that have other chemical features than alcohol. It is not poisonous, hence it becomes a new substance that does not share the Hukm of Khamr and it is pure just like any other substance that falls under the rule "the original state in things is permissibility (Ibaha), as long as there is no prohibiting evidence."

C. In another section alcohol is changed in its essence and loses its intoxicating feature. It forms a new substance with the other substances with features different from alcohol. But these new substances are poisonous, thus falling under the ruling of poison: They are pure but their usage for drinking or causing harm with them to oneself or another is Haram.

3. Therefore if ethyl alcohol is mixed with other substances, then the ruling depends on whether it loses its intoxicating feature or not and whether the mixture is poisonous or not. This needs an investigation of the underlying reality by experts and specialists. If it is scientifically or practically proven that the mix is intoxicating, then it falls under the rule of Khamr, indicating that the ethyl alcohol has not lost its intoxicating feature in this mixture. Nevertheless if it is scientifically or practically proven that the mixture is no longer intoxicating nor that it is poisonous, it does not fall under the ruling of Khamr or poison. If it is scientifically proven that this mixture is no longer intoxicating but it remains poisonous, it does not fall under the ruling of Khamr but it falls under the ruling of poison.

Based on the aforementioned:

- Sister Ghadeer Rooz's question which says: "poisonous substances are mixed with alcohol to prevent its intoxication, causing it to become a poisonous substance that is not intoxicating".

The answer is: If it is confirmed by the specialists that the mixture in this state does not intoxicate but is poisonous, then it does not fall under the ruling on Khamr nor is it impure. Rather the ruling on poison is applied to it, such that its usage for drinking or causation of harm through it to others is Haram.

- Question of Brother Abu Mahmoud Al-Khalili which says: "Alcohol contained in perfume is of two types, one of it being intoxicating, known as ethyl alcohol. Now the toxic alcohol is what is known as methyl alcohol. Do they both share the same Islamic ruling?"

The answer is that they do not have the same ruling. The intoxicating substance falls under the ruling on Khamr, while the mixture containing poisonous methyl alcohol falls under the ruling on poison.  Perfume, as relayed to me, does not contain methyl but ethyl alcohol. So please have this issue clarified by specialists, because the ruling depends on whether it is intoxicating or poisonous without causing intoxication.

- Question of Brother Mustapha Abdul ‘Aal : "If it is not drunk, oh Sheikh?"

If the result of the mixture is intoxicating, such as cologne; then, it falls under the ruling on Khamr. Khamr is forbidden under ten circumstances, not only if it is drunk.  At-Tirmidhi reported from Anas Ibn Malik who said:

لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الخَمْرِ عَشَرَةً: عَاصِرَهَا، وَمُعْتَصِرَهَا، وَشَارِبَهَا، وَحَامِلَهَا، وَالمَحْمُولَةُ إِلَيْهِ، وَسَاقِيَهَا، وَبَائِعَهَا، وَآكِلَ ثَمَنِهَا، وَالمُشْتَرِي لَهَا، وَالمُشْتَرَاةُ لَهُ

"The Messenger of Allah (saw) cursed ten in relation to Khamr: its producer, the one assigned with its production, the one who drinks it, the one who transports it, the one it is transported to, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who eats from its profit, its buyer, and the one for whom it is purchased."

Any of these ten roles is Haram.

- Question of Iklil Al-Jabal: "Does this ruling apply to pharmaceuticals? Especially as many of the hand cleaning substances in all branches of health services are made up of alcohols, "ethanol + isopropanol", it is the same with mouthwashes. We use alcohol in some of the pharmaceutical productions as solvents or preservatives."

The answer is that the usage of alcohol in medicine, as well as the drug containing alcohol, fall under the ruling of permission, though it is undesirable (Makruh), the evidence for it being:

Ibn Majah reported from Tariq Bin Suwaid Al-Khadrami who said:

يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ بِأَرْضِنَا أَعْنَابًا نَعْتَصِرُهَا فَنَشْرَبُ مِنْهَا قَالَ «لَا» فَرَاجَعْتُهُ قُلْتُ إِنَّا نَسْتَشْفِي بِهِ لِلْمَرِيضِ قَالَ :إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ بِشِفَاءٍ وَلَكِنَّهُ دَاءٌ

"I said: "Oh Messenger of Allah, on our land we have grapes which we squeeze and then drink from it". He said: "No." Therefore I revised by saying: "We use it to cure the ill." He said: "This is not a form of healing, rather it is a disease."

This is a prohibition of the use of impure or prohibited substances "Khamr" as a cure. But the Messenger of Allah (saw) authorized curing with the impure substance of camel's urine. Al-Bukhari reported from Anas (ra):

«أَنَّ نَاسًا مِنْ عُرَيْنَةَ اجْتَوَوْا الْمَدِينَةَ فَرَخَّصَ لَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا»

"People from ‘Uraina came to Madina, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) authorized them to approach the camels of charity to drink from their milk and urine."

They came to Madina, i.e. its weather did not suit them so they fell ill. Therefore the Prophet (saw) authorized them to medicate with the camel's urine, which is impure. Also he (saw) authorized medication with Haram, such as the wearing of silk.

At-Tirmidhi and Ahmad reported, at- Tirmidhi's articulation by way of Anas (ra):

أَنَّ عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ عَوْفٍ وَالزُّبَيْرَ بْنَ الْعَوَّامِ شَكَيَا الْقَمْلَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي غَزَاةٍ لَهُمَا، فَرَخَّصَ لَهُمَا فِي قُمُصِ الْحَرِيرِ. قَالَ: وَرَأَيْتُهُ عَلَيْهِمَا

"Abdul Rahman Bin ‘Auf and az-Zubair Bin ‘Awam complained about rash that had befallen them to the Prophet (saw), and he allowed them shirts made of silk. He said: "I saw them in it."

These two Ahadith indicate that the prohibition in the Hadith of Ibn Majah is not absolute, rather that medication through impure and prohibited substances is undesirable (Makruh).

Therefore, the use of a medicine that contains alcohol is permitted, though undesirable (Makruh). It is better not to use alcohol in the pharmaceutical industry, but if used in the pharmaceutical industry then it falls under the Hukm of Makruh. Therefore if the patient takes a medication containing alcohol then it is Makruh. All of this applies only if the mixture containing alcohol is a medication according to the opinion of specialists and not something else.

- Question of Sister Manal Bader: "Assalamu Alaikum dear Sheikh,  Barak Allahu Feek as you kindly mentioned above that alcohol if consumed will result in a drunken state...Whereas "SD" or denatured alcohol is used in perfumes, deodorant, lotions and facial creams... in these cases they cannot be consumed internally (due to the change of its chemical state). What is Hukm on their usage? In another situation, the fuel we use for our cars is also derived from alcohol, does this also fall under the Hukm of Haram? Jazak Allahu kul Khair and may Allah protect you."

The answer is that you have mentioned some sort of alcohol-type "SD" or chemically treated alcohol, and you call it "toxic ethanol" and I do not know whether this product falls under ethyl or methyl. The broad outline is that if the result of the produced mixture is not intoxicating but poisonous, then it does not fall under the ruling on Khamr but under the ruling on poison. Therefore it is prohibited if used by a person to cause harm to oneself or another. And the produced substance is pure if no juristic evidence on its impurity exists.

However, if the result of the mixture is intoxicating, then it is under the ruling of Khamr and not only its drinking is forbidden, but all ten circumstances aforementioned.

As for the motor fuel mixed with alcohol, the broad outline is: If its reality is such that if drunk it causes intoxication, then it falls under the ruling on Khamr. If it is not intoxicating but poisonous, then the ruling on poison is applied to it. This has to be decided by the specialists.

Your Brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Women of Hizb ut Tahrir appalled by a chemical attack and other massacres of women and children in Syria marched in London to show solidarity and called for Muslim armies to mobilise to defend the blood of their Ummah.

More than a thousand women gathered at Paddington Green for a short rally before marching to the Syrian embassy. At the front of the march children carried a small coffin and others carried bundles representing dead children. As they say in the call for the march "rows upon rows of dead children in their burial shrouds have no doubt brought us to tears as Muslim women, for this is our beloved Ummah that is being killed." The leaflet called on them to "Stand in solidarity with your sisters in Syria and speak out against the shedding of their blood and that of their families and children."

They reject the idea of Western military intervention in Syria, which they say "will only subject its Muslims to another phase of oppression as seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and is aimed at preventing the establishment of Islamic governance in Syria."

Hizb ut Tahrir seek the replacement of the current corrupt rulers in Islamic states by a Khilifah (caliphate), a state that will truly implement Islamic values and end the corruption and oppression of the current states. They want Muslims to rise up and get rid of corruption, and in particular of "the criminal regime of the butcher Bashar Al Assad" in Syria, for Muslim armies to mobilise and replace the rule of the dictator with the rule of Allah."

Almost all the women on the march wore head-scarves, with only a very small minority in niqabs or burqas which covered the whole face. Very few turned away when I raised my camera and I had no problems photographing the march setting up and a rally before the start at Paddington Green. There was one small group of men with a banner and a heavy public address system, but otherwise the whole protest was by women and children. I left the march on Edgware Road on its way to protest at the Syrian embassy.

[Source: Demotix, submitted by Peter Marshal]

Questions:

Asalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu.

I have a question of two parts on my mind that stopped me many times in the book, The Economic System, regarding the barren land on Kharaj land.

The same issue was repeated in the book Funds of the Islamic State in the same context. It is about the barren land on Kharaj land that is treated as the ‘Ushri land with regards to the Muslim; he is allowed to fence and own it and does not pay Kharaj on it but only pays ‘Ushr. As for the Dhimmi, he is not allowed to own it but pays Kharaj on it.

The question is: Why can't the Dhimmi own the land when it is treated as ‘Ushri land when in ‘Ushri land he can fence and own the land? Since in origin, is for him to be treated the treatment of the ‘Ushri as the Muslim is treated. This is regarding the first question.

As for the second question: Why do we say that the Dhimmi must pay Kharaj on ‘Ushri land? And Kharaj is not taken from ‘Ushri land? Since in origin it should be treated as its origin, we must not call it Kharaj because it has a Shar' meaning and here we contradicted the definition by calling the money taken from the Dhimmi on ‘Ushri land as Kharaj. Why cannot there be Ijtihad in the name of this money?

Jazak Allahu Khair.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum as Salam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu.

1.    Barren land is either on 'Ushri land or on Kharaj land.

a)  As for ‘Ushri land; reviving the barren (dead) land in it keeps it as ‘Ushri land. If it is revived by a Muslim then he has the ownership of its land title (raqabah) and its benefit and pays ‘Ushr on it as zakat.

If it was revived by a Kaffir Dhimmi, it remains as ‘Ushri land and he has the ownership of its land title (raqabah) and its benefit but pays Kharaj on it and not ‘Ushr, because ‘Ushr is Zakat. The Zakat is not taken from the Kaffir. And the agricultural land either ‘Ushr is paid on it according to the Shar'i rules, or Kharaj.  Because ‘Ushr is not taken from a Kaffir this is why he pays Kharaj on it.

b)  As for the barren land on Kharaj land, it is of two types:

-       A kharaj land that Kharaj was previously imposed on, then it became barren. If it is revived by a Muslim or Kaffir then its description does not change. And it remains as Kharaj land that both Muslim and Kaffir pay Kharaj on.

-       Another type of the Kharaj land is the one which Kharaj was not previously imposed on. If a Muslim revives it, it becomes ‘Ushri land and he pays ‘Ushr on it. And if a Kaffir Dhimmi revives it, then its description does not change and it remains as Kharaj land and kharaj is paid on it.

c)  As to why we say that the Dhimmi pays Kharaj on ‘Ushri land if he owns it. This is because any land is not free from a role; so it is ‘Ushri land that a Muslim pays ‘Ushr of Zakat on it, and Zakat is not taken from the Dhimmi. The agricultural land is not free from a role according to Sharr' rules. Therefore the Dhimmi pays Kharaj on it if he owns it.

The evidences of agricultural land categorised any land as either ‘Ushri land or Kharaj land.

As to how this is the case, here is the explanation:

The evidences of the rules regarding the agricultural land that are mentioned in Shari'ah:

• General evidences on all land that obliges Zakat of ‘Ushr on it or half of ‘Ushr according to Shar'i rules...

"فيم سقت الأنهار والغيم العشور، وفيما سقي بالسانية نصف العشر"

"There is tithe (‘Ushr) on land which receives its water from the sky, a river or was ‘Athariyya (trees or plants watered by rain). There is half-tithe on land which was irrigated by a bucket from rivers or wells" and other evidences.

• After the conquests a new problem arose on the lands, they were taken out of the general text, and Kharaj was taken from them:

قَالَ أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ: حدثنا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ: قَبِلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْجِزْيَةَ مِنْ مَجُوسِ الْبَحْرَيْنِ قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ: فَمَنْ أَسْلَمَ مِنْهُمْ قَبِلَ إِسْلَامَهُ، وَأَحْرَزَ إِسْلَامُهُ نَفْسَهُ وَمَالَهُ إِلَّا الْأَرْضَ، فَإِنَّهَا فَيْءٌ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يُسْلِمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَهُوَ فِي مَنَعَةٍ

"The Messenger of Allah (saw) accepted the Jizya from the Magi of Bahrain." Al-Zuhri said: "He who embraced Islam he (saw) accepted it from him and his Islam ensured that his life and his wealth were safe, save for the land. That land became booty for the Muslims because he had not embraced Islam in the first instance when he was in a position of strength"

This is what Umar (ra) judged by on the Sawad Land when he said:

" وقد رأيت أن أحبس الأرضين بعلوجها، وأضع فيها الخراج..."

"I have thought that I should hold back the land with its infidel population and impose on them Kharaj..." and other evidences.

• This is why all agricultural land in Dar ul Islam has Zakat on it according to Shar'i rules. Except a specific type that has Kharaj on it.
• The general rule is applied on generally: "That all agricultural land in Dar ul Islam has zakat" according to Shar'i rules and nothing is beyond these rules except what is made Khas (restrictive) by the text "Kharaj land".

2. This is the rule on agricultural land, it is either ‘Ushri or Kharaj. This is the description of agricultural land which is not free from a role, i.e. there is no agricultural land that is not called either ‘Ushri land or kharaj land.

3. As for you saying that Kharaj has a Shar'i understanding and when a Dhimmi pays Kharaj on ‘Ushri land then we contradicted the Shar'i understanding of kharaj; this saying is incorrect because the Kharaj land does not have an explained description in reality of the ground if it is ‘Ushri or Kharaj, land is land i.e. it is a rigid term. There could be ‘Ushri land and near it could be a Kharaj land but there is no difference between them in soil nor the plants. The phrase Kharaj is not an explained description linked to a rule, this is why the payment by Dhimmi of kharaj on ‘Ushr that he owns holds no contradiction to the understanding of Kharaj.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah.

The link to the answer forum from the Ameer's facebook page:

The official spokesman of Hizb ut Tahrir in the Wilayah of Sudan, Brother Ibrahim Uthman (Abu Khalil), gave an address explaining the vehement rejecting opinion of the Hizb regarding the recent increase of the fuel prices. With the ranging rates of 66% increase in the price of the petrol per gallon, 73% increase in the price of gasoline, and 67% increase in the price of the cooking gas cylinder. These increases are considered to be solutions as a by-product of the corrupt capitalist system.