Monday, 07/09/2013
News:
On the 8th of September, NBC News published an article entitled, "All they can do is scream" that discussed the severe post-traumatic stress affecting the children of Syria due to what they have endured during the ongoing brutal war waged by the tyrant Assad against the sincere Muslims of Ash-Sham. Undoubtedly, the children of Syria have been one of the main victims of this war, having witnessed and experienced unspeakable horrors that no child should ever witness or endure. Thousands have been killed, and in the recent Ghouta massacre, the majority of victims were women and children. Many have been tortured and even raped, while others have seen killings, butchery, and even witnessed their parents murdered in front of their eyes. In addition, the charity, Save the Children Fund, has received reports of children dying by the roadside, or being driven to lick the moisture from grass and leaves in a desperate attempt to starve off thirst in the searing heat during treacherous and desperate ‘death journeys' to flee the fighting.
Comment:
However, the traumatized children of Syria do not only carry the physical and psychological scars of war but face yet another phase of hardship, struggle, and oppression when seeking refuge in neighbouring countries as also addressed in the NBC News article and a piece published by Al-Jazeera on 3rd of September that discussed the poverty, exploitation, and poor treatment that Syrian child refugees face in surrounding states such as Lebanon or Jordan. According to the UN, 1 million child refugees from Syria are children, ¾ of whom it estimates are under 11 years old. Many are orphaned and left to survive on their own or placed in impoverished camps with inadequate food and medical care, and no clean water, sanitation, or electricity resulting in diseases, chronic malnutrition, and even death. Thousands of Syrian child refugees, especially orphans have been forced to fend for themselves and their families as a result of extreme poverty in host states due to governments and rulers who have shunned their responsibility of taking care of their needs adequately. In Lebanon, that has the highest numbers of Syrian refugees, it is estimated that 50,000 to 70,000 children work on the streets, mainly in construction work, in shops, agriculture, or as domestic workers. They face deplorable working conditions, long working hours, and poor pay, alongside facing the danger of physical or sexual violence or exploitation on the streets. In Jordan there are around 30,000 Syrian children currently working in the country. Furthermore, Syrian child refugees in Lebanon do not have any official form of identification and therefore are treated as ‘non-persons' by the state preventing them from access to any formal education, while only a tiny proportion of refugee children in other countries have access to education. All this has led a number of aid agencies to talk about the creation of a ‘lost generation' of Syrian children.
Indeed, the children of Syria and their families have paid a heavy price in their noble struggle to remove the oppressive secular dictatorship and system in their land and replace it with guardianship under the rule of Islam implemented by the Khilafah "Caliphate". Now, as Western governments ratchet up their rhetoric for military intervention in Syria, as Muslims any form of Western interference in the country should be fervently rejected for not only is it decisively prohibited by Allah (swt) but has two primary aims: Firstly, to install their next client regime in the country, the Syrian National Council who will implement a Western secular system and serve the interests of Western governments rather than those of the people, and secondly, to prevent the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate". This is not military intervention driven by a genuine concern for the children of Syria. The US is afterall a regime that is happy to continue a policy of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that has killed hundreds of Muslim children. Support for Western military intervention will therefore betray the great sacrifices that the Muslims of Syria have made in this revolution for Islam AND result in the realization of the prediction of a ‘lost generation' of Syrian children who will be left abandoned to live out the rest of their childhood if not their lives in these wretched conditions. They will be deprived of the right to live under the security of the Islamic leadership and system of the Khilafah "Caliphate" that would truly take care of their needs, providing them adequate provision, shelter, and a good education as Allah (swt) has obliged and as expressed by the Prophet (saw) when he said:"مَنْ تَرَكَ مَالاً فَلِوَرَثَتِهِ، وَمَنْ تَرَكَ كَلاًّ فَإِلَيْنَا" "If someone leaves some property, it will be for the inheritors, and if he leaves some weak offspring, it will be for us to support them."
The call must go out to the Muslim armies alone to intervene urgently in this war to protect the blood of their Ummah and to give their Nusrah (material support) for the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate" that alone can save the children of Syria and those across the Muslim world from their desperate plight. This call will be one of the many messages expressed in a large women and children's march to be held in London on September 22nd and to be attended by women from across the UK. It has been organised by the women of Hizb ut Tahrir who hope to mobilise Muslim women to stand in solidarity and support of the Islamic struggle of their sisters in Syria who are sacrificing their lives and that of their children to establish the rule of Islam in their land which alone holds the promise of a brighter future for the children of this Ummah.
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Dr. Nazreen Nawaz
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
An interview that was performed by the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Syria with Sheikh Abu Muhammad Faisal from the first generation; who is from the village of Kufra, countryside of Aleppo. They discussed the suffering he endured and how he preserved to carry a great responsibility under these oppressive regimes; the Islamic Dawah and worked to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Khilafah "Caliphate" State.
Dhu al- Qi'dah 1434 AH corresponding to September 2013 CE
Hizb ut Tahrir - Wilayah of Jordan invites you to attend the Dialogue Assembly which will be held on Saturday 14/9/2013 in Amman - Diraa' Al-Gharbi district, near Al-Haya Public Hospital, from 5.30 p.m. until Maghreb prayer.
This will be to condemn the massacres which are being committed by America's criminal tyrant Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, and the atrocities committed by America's agents in Egypt, and denouncing the Kaffir Western intervention, headed by America, in Syria. Therefore will the one who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim children in Iraq and Afghanistan save the children of Syria? The killer is indeed one but with a change of tools, so will the Muslims not be insightful?!
The invitation is public.
The Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
Wilayah of Jordan
Invitation to a Festival from the Mosques:
"Our Islam is not Their Democracy"
New episodes in what seems like a series of exposing episodes have followed up with the voices demanding an inventory of Syrian chemical weapons in an international covenant as a prelude to their destruction. The beginning was made by a statement by John Kerry during a joint news conference with his British counterpart in London on 09/09/2013, that Bashar can avoid a military strike if he submits his chemical stock. After some time, Lavrov said that John Kerry's proposal had reached his ears and he will convince Syria for approval. After about an hour, the head stood in front of journalists in Moscow and announced the approval in the name of the tyrant regime of ash-Sham. After that, in less than a few hours passing, France's Minister of Foreign Affairs on 09/10/2013 announced that he would submit a project to the Security Council on this issue under Chapter VII. The states soon scrambled to approve the destruction of the chemical weapons, from Britain to Germany over to China. Even Iran has announced that it welcomed this matter. How this reveals the extent of American leadership over these people!
Just like that the tyrant agrees to destroy the weapons for which the Ummah paid the price from its own sweat, to become ashes scattered by the wind. The justification cited by their head in Moscow is the protection of the blood of the Syrian people, and to prevent an American military strike. All these are blatant lies! His master of tyrants and his henchmen have shed blood in endless amounts and violated the sanctities and arrested thousands and displaced millions through aircraft, missiles and explosive barrels and chemical weapons, for which the people paid the price with the livelihoods of their children to protect them from the enemy. The fire that burned them was at the same time the security and the peace of their enemy. The prevention of the strike is a misnomer as well; the state that lost its means of power is more susceptible to military intervention than the one that still possesses such means. This knowing that if America decided to strike ash-Sham, their servant the tyrant of ash-Sham would not dare to oppose them, not even to raise his voice while crying! Moreover, the tyrant by agreeing to put the stocks of chemical weapons in the hands of America and its allies for destruction may open the door to seize the land of as-Sham, when the numerous inspection teams will ransack it to locate this stock, and will require a guard in the form of American and Western armies to protect their project. Thereby the delivery of the chemical weaponry by the tyrant will not postpone military intervention if it becomes necessary for the interest of America.
Oh Muslims: The family of Hafez and Bashar have served America for nearly half a century, kept its interests in the region, and stayed awake for the security of the State of the Jews ... When the people revolted against the tyrant, America and its allies provided him with all the opportunities for murder and oppression of the people, so that perhaps he could subside their movement, but he could not. He realized his masters want to replace him with another traitor agent of his kind, therefore they created their coalition and their council, and exerted their outmost effort to propagate them to the people inside Syria. They did not succeed in that, the cries of the people: "It is for Allah, it is for Allah", "Our leader till the end of time is Sayyidina Muhammad", the Takbirat increased with strength...all of that haunts them in their beds. America and its allies continued giving deadline after deadline to Bashar and his henchmen for their slaughter and oppression while their servants abroad continued making their efforts to convince people of democracy, a republic and a civil state, but they cringed in their failure...
Afterwards America started waving with military action as an introduction to impose an alternative agent ruler through the Geneva negotiations and giving deadline after deadline for military action to be assured that the strike will submit everyone to go to Geneva under military pressure. Since then Obama could be seen carrying a gun and then throwing it on the ground alternately...Saying "I took a decision" then returning to say "I am waiting for Congress". Along the way Obama is studying the results of the strike: Will it lead to Geneva and negotiations and the imposition of an alternative agent? If so he will execute the strike. But if it does not lead to the desired results, he slows down in executing the strike.
The Takbirat of the Muslims in the land of ash-Sham made the way to Geneva to negotiate with the tyrant a point of no return, because the one who accepts to sit down with the tyrant or his henchmen will be caught in the vicious circle. America and its allies realized that it is doubtful that the results of the strike will lead to the Geneva negotiations, rather this needs more time and more pressure. Because they are accustomed to deadlines whenever their order is not abided by, they sought refuge in a deadline again, bringing the Congress and the House of Representatives to lengthen the debate and postpone the vote, waiting to tame the people through murder and oppression and the threat of a military intervention, so that they will accept to go to Geneva for negotiations with the tyrant. The strike is not intended for its own sake, rather it shall be followed by the imposition of the rule of an alternative agent in the Geneva negotiations. They fear that sincere Muslims will ascend into rule before America can create its agent... a camp that lies outside the calculations of the Kuffar and their aids...a camp that will render its outmost efforts to expel America and its allies from the region, which will place the security of their stepchild the State of the Jews in danger, even the collapse of the whole entity is in sight...During all of this they taper their devilish minds in the destruction of the most powerful weapon in Syria that will affect the security of the Jews, and in particular they realize that their creation Bashar does not in the least benefit them in this matter. From then it became a series of exposing episodes, directed by America, Russia taking an extra role in it, as well as the one subservient to them, the traitor of his Ummah, the tyrant of Syria.
O Muslims: Adversity is the touchstone of men, thus will the struggle intensify after this adversity? You are a great Ummah that does not sleep over grievances, that defeated the Crusaders and eliminated the Tatars, and then returned to dominate the world ... After the Crusaders and the Tatars aimed to kill this Ummah, it convulsed again and conquer Constantinople and struck the gates of Vienna ... Because it returned to the source of its strength: its Deen and its Khilafah "Caliphate", thereby ruling the world, after it had already seemed to its enemies that the Ummah was terminated. So when they woke up from their sleep, they found something they could not even have imagined in their bravest dreams. If you return to the source of your strength, your Deen and your Khilafah "Caliphate", you will outshine everyone! Oh you who possess vision, take this into consideration, and know that if the misfortune comes it will not only befall the tyrants but also those who remained silent in the face of their injustice.
Allah (swt) says:
[وَاتَّقُوا فِتْنَةً لَا تُصِيبَنَّ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْكُمْ خَاصَّةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ]
"And fear a trial which will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively, and know that Allah is severe in penalty." [Al-Anfal 8:25]
Ahmad reported in his Musnad from Mujahid, who said:
حَدَّثَنِي مَوْلًى لَنَا، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ جَدِّي، يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُعَذِّبُ الْعَامَّةَ بِعَمَلِ الْخَاصَّةِ، حَتَّى يَرَوْا الْمُنْكَرَ بَيْنَ ظَهْرَانَيْهِمْ، وَهُمْ قَادِرُونَ عَلَى أَنْ يُنْكِرُوهُ فَلَا يُنْكِرُوهُ، فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ، عَذَّبَ اللَّهُ الْخَاصَّةَ وَالْعَامَّةَ
"One of our masters talked to me, saying he heard my grandfather say: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Allah does not punish the generality for an individual action, until they see the wrongdoing (Munkar) in their midst and are able to forbid it but they do not forbid it. If they do so, Allah will punish the generality and the individual." (Also reported by Ibn Shaibah in his Musnad)
Oh Muslims: It is a tragedy to destroy our weapons with the consent of those tyrant rulers... It is a tragedy that the Ummah has not been pressing its armies to dislodge these traitor tyrants who have corrupted the lands and destroyed plants and stones ... It is a tragedy to see our blood being spilled and not stop it, and to see our weapons being destroyed and not defend them. We see our wealth being plundered and do not cut off the hand that extends to it, and we see our lands fray and lessen from the boundaries and do not halt the detraction and increase those boundaries... We watch our women being violated and our blood does not boil in our veins...
Allah oh Allah to your Deen, Allah oh Allah to your Ummah, Allah oh Allah to your Khilafah "Caliphate", Allah oh Allah to your weapons!
Despite all of this, prepare for the victory of your Deen and the defeat of your enemy under the leadership of a Khaleefah who will be your shield, you will fight from behind him, and find protection from him. If you do so, you will regain your glory, you will be victorious in both worlds. But if you do not, your enemy will not be content with the destruction of your weapons at your own hands, rather he will make you welcome him when he enters your houses. Then there will be no more escape!
إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
"Indeed in that is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present [in mind]." [Qaf 50:37]
Questions:
Assalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabrakatahu:
Honorable Scholar Ata' Bin Khalil, may Allah sustain you and provide for you;
Economic questions related to gold:
What are the factors affecting the price of gold?
Why did the price of gold fall since the end of last year?
To what is the sudden decline, approximately a month ago, attributed?
Does the Shariah permit the saving of gold instead of paper currency while taking care of the Zakah payment (is this considered to be hoarding)? And if it were permissible, is it recommendable from an economic perspective?
Barakallahu Feek!
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wabarakatahu:
1. As you know, money was formerly gold and silver, and even when some states in the late 19th century and early 20th century issued paper money, this paper money was in exchange for gold and silver. The owner of a banknote could take it to the State Bank which had issued it and exchange it for the value it held in gold.
2. This situation wavered during World War I in 1914 and World War II in 1939 and in particular with the occurrence of the Great Depression in America in 1929, which also spread to other countries, thereby placing several constrains on the exchange of paper money for gold.
3. When World War II ended in 1945 and America came out of it with minimal losses, while Europe, Germany and Japan were afflicted with great loss and destruction in factories and architecture... From then on most gold was with America after the war. Through its military and economic strength America was able in the Bretton Woods Conference to make its paper currency the dollar a standard for other nations' currencies as gold used to be a standard, meaning that nations could not print money and promote it unless they had a cover for it in either gold or dollars. America set a price for the dollar, which was 35 dollars per ounce of gold, and pledged to pay the countries the value in gold at the aforementioned price if they wanted.
4. This helped America with its stock of gold being equal or even higher than the stock of printed paper dollars at home or abroad. It was important that the American stocks of gold were able to cover the dollars in the hands of foreign countries or foreign individuals, since dealing with the paper dollar at home is easier than dealing with the one abroad.
To make the image clear, America's stock of gold in 1946 after the Bretton Woods Agreement was worth the price defined in the agreement = $ 20.6 billion, while the paper dollar abroad with states and individuals was $ 6.1 billion. The situation remained like this, such that America was able to ensure the mentioned dollar price until 1960, when the American gold stock amounted to18.8 billion. The amount of paper dollars abroad was 18.7 billion, such that they were able to secure the price of the dollar. After that the dollar stocks abroad started to exceed the gold stock in America.
5. The result of the deterioration of the golden standard for the dollar caused America to ask for help from major countries in the world. They agreed to establish an association of gold with the aim that if the price of gold rose in the market for any reason the banks would hurry to intervene immediately by putting an additional quantity of gold for sale as to rearrange the price at the equilibrium level. On the contrary if the price fell, the banks would hurry to buy the excess amount of gold, such that the price rises to the initial level.
The association continued for some years, but then it gradually started to openly intervene in the market, especially between 1965 and until its abolition on the 17th of March 1968, which threatened the gold stocks of the associated countries to melt away. France withdrew from the association in June 1967 and then the crises accelerated (the Sterling crises in the fall of 1967, then the gold crisis in 1968). These two crises caused the countries within the gold association a loss that amounted to 2.5 billion dollars in gold within 6 months. A meeting was held in Washington on the 17th of March 1968 in which the decision was taken to cancel the gold association and to leave the price of gold unrestricted, to be determined by the forces of supply and demand.
6. The aforementioned gold crisis caused the gold stocks of America to decrease from $14 billion in 1965 to 10.48 billion in March 1968, when the gold association was abolished. This American gold stock was the minimum amount required by the law at the time in order for the interior gold to cover the dollar (25%). At that time America canceled the conversion of privately owned dollars abroad into gold and kept only the replacement of official foreign gold stocks. The amount of gold remaining in America, which was the aforementioned minimum, was enough for the official external stocks only, meaning that the gold backing for the dollar at home (25%) had been removed. Nevertheless America was unable to exchange the official foreign stocks as a result of the import and export of the private sector, as well as transactions of the public sector in its international relations with others.
7. As a result America under President Nixon canceled the exchange system with gold entirely in 1971, and since then there is no longer a gold standard to back the paper money. Rather the value of paper money is defined by the countries' economies, meaning the balance of their payments, their security status and the emergency crises... This in addition to the money market speculation, also oil prices are an important component and their exposure to security situations or disorder.
8. In order to clarify this we say:
A. Gold, like any other commodity, ever since history is affected by supply and demand. If the supply increases, some countries sell part of its stock of gold to strengthen the economy, i.e. the amount of gold on the market increases while the price of gold falls... If some countries or some individuals turn to buy gold for a certain speculative demand, then the demand increases and the price rises.
B. Furthermore when the restrictions on the import of gold are lifted or reduced, the import and export are stimulated and then the supply of gold in the markets increases, which in turn causes the gold price to decrease, as happened in the Gulf in early 2011 after the exemption of gold from custom taxes had been imposed on gold manufactures and jewelry crafting. Another factor was the standardization of stamps on gold between these countries, which led to the decline in gold prices due to the increased movement of import and export of gold between them.
C. Also if the dollar deflates for economic reasons or military reasons or others, people turn to gold reserves instead of the dollar. Even the countries try to reserve gold in their assets instead of the dollar, increasing demand for gold and thus raising its price. As soon as the dollar rises to the improvement of the American economy or what comes close to it, people regain confidence in the dollar, selling some of their savings in gold, such that the supply rises and they reserve the dollar instead, causing the price of gold to decrease again.
D. Then there is the issue of oil. The rise in gold prices today or its decline is proportional to the rise in the price of oil or its decline. When the price of a barrel of oil rises, the gold price rises with it, and the lower the price of the American dollar, the higher the price of gold.
9. Based on this, one can understand the answers to your questions:
A. The decrease of the gold price in 2012:
Two remarkable things happened during that year:
First: A relative improvement in the price of the dollar after the severe suffering that hit it during the previous years that followed America 's economic crisis caused by the collapse of the real estate market... This improvement in the price of the dollar led to a decline in the price of gold as mentioned above, as the price of gold is inversely proportional to the price of the dollar...
Second: Russia sold about 4 tons of gold reserves for the first time in five years. This sale contributed to an increase in gold supply on the market, thus lowering the price of gold.
There are other minor reasons, but what we have mentioned above have had a major impact.
B. The sudden drop of the gold price during the month of July 2013 was connected to what happened on 06/19/2013 when the head of the American Federal, i.e. the U.S. Central Bank, announced a possible agenda for the progressive reduction of the quantitative easing program. This led to a strong support of the dollar and the decline in gold prices to an unexpected degree, as the price of an ounce dropped to nearly 1180 dollars! This price is only slightly higher than the cost of extracting gold from the mines, which lies between 1135 and 1150 dollars per ounce, prompting Pankaj Gupta, managing director of SMC Comex, to say: "I do not expect prices to fall below these levels, for the main reason that the cost of extracting gold from mines is up to one $1135 per ounce, and a $1150, which means that the price falling below these levels would lead miners to stop the extraction and the reduction of gold supply in the market, which will in turn raise the prices again."
This statement is true to a certain extent, since the prices in the month of August 2013 returned to a slight increase to 1310 dollars per ounce, despite the precautions of the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce the bond-buying program which is worth $ 85 billion per month. This means the reduction of the supply of dollars, consequently increasing the price of the dollar and simultaneously decreasing the price of gold. However the price did not fall under the rate of July 2013, although the price of gold is still down nearly to cost price. But as Gupta said, the closer the gold price comes to its cost price, some mines will decrease production and then at least the supply of gold in the market rises, raising its price at least slightly...
C. Regarding your question about savings of gold and silver instead of paper currency, the legal provisions for gold do not differentiate between gold in the form of minted coins or in the form of an alloy etc. The hoarding of gold is Haram even if the Zakah was paid on it, and this is the correct view of the matter according to the Shar'i evidences relating to it. Except savings for a need, for example if you wanted to build a house or wed your daughter ...then this is permissible with the Zakah payment on it.
Brother Ata' Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook Page:
Question:
The Khilafah "Caliphate" is a contract based on mutual consent and choice, the Ummah made a condition for Abdul-Rahman bin Awf (radhiyaAllahu anhu) that whoever becomes a ruler should only rule by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), adding to this "the methodology of the two scholars"(..?) So do we understand from this that it is permissible for the Ummah to make a condition in the Bayah contract determining the duration for the Khaleefah? Please clarify, Jazakum Allah Khair.
Answer:
Before answering, I would like to remind you with the following:
1. It is permissible for the Muslim to place any condition in contracts as he pleases except that which allows a haram or bans a halal. It was reported by Al-Bukhari that the Prophet (saw) said in the hadith reported by Aísha (ra) in the issue of ransoming Barira...
And then the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood up among the people and praised and glorified Allah and then said,
أَمَّا بَعْدُ، مَا بَالُ رِجَالٍ يَشْتَرِطُونَ شُرُوطًا لَيْسَتْ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، مَا كَانَ مِنْ شَرْطٍ لَيْسَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَهُوَ بَاطِلٌ، وَإِنْ كَانَ مِائَةَ شَرْطٍ، قَضَاءُ اللَّهِ أَحَقُّ، وَشَرْطُ اللَّهِ أَوْثَقُ، وَإِنَّمَا الوَلاَءُ لِمَنْ أَعْتَقَ
"Why is it that some men make conditions which are not in the Book of Allah? Any condition which is not in the Book of Allah is invalid even if it is stipulated a hundred times. The decision of Allah is more binding and the condition of Allah is firmer. The wala' (loyalty) belongs to the one who sets free."
Tirmidhi also reported in the Sahih Hadith that it was reported by Katheer bin Abdullah bin Amr bin Awf Al-Muzany, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather that the Prophet of Allah (saw) said:
«وَالمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى شُرُوطِهِمْ، إِلَّا شَرْطًا حَرَّمَ حَلَالًا، أَوْ أَحَلَّ حَرَامًا»
"The believers have to abide by the conditions they have agreed on, except a condition that made a prohibition (haram) allowable(halal) and something allowed (halal) prohibited (haram)."
2. Hence, it is permissible for the Muslim to add a condition in the contracts, but without allowing something that it prohibited or prohibiting that which is allowed, i.e. without going against the Legislation of Allah (swt), it otherwise becomes a void and unlawful condition.
3. It is allowed for a Mujtahid to make Taqleed to another Mujtahid, as was the case with the Companions (radhiaAllahu anhum), thus, if a Muslim conditions a Mujtahid to make Taqleed to another Mujtahid in a specific matter, otherwise he will not give bayah to him, then this (condition) is valid because it is permissible for a Mujtahid to make Taqleed to another Mujtahid.
It is mentioned in the book The Islamic Personality Volume I, under the chapter "The Reality of Taqleed", (in the second paragraph, page 222 of the Arabic version; p. 178 in the English version)
"When the Mujtahid comes to obtain a complete competence (ahliyya) for Ijtihad in one of the issues, then if he performs Ijtihad on it and his Ijtihad leads him to the hukm, he is not allowed to imitate other Mujtahidin in a matter contrary to what his Ijtihad has led him to. It is not allowed for him to leave his opinion in this matter except in four cases:
First: When it appears that the evidence on which he relied in his Ijtihad is weak (da'if) and the evidence of another Mujtahid is stronger than the evidence he used. In such a case he is obliged to leave forthwith the rule to which his Ijtihad had led and adopt the rule which is evidentially stronger....
Second: When it appears to a Mujtahid that another Mujtahid has a greater capacity to link or has better awareness of the reality, or stronger comprehension of the evidences or is more acquainted with the textual evidences (adilla sam'iyya) etc. And it became preponderate to him that the other Mujtahid is closer to the truth in understanding a specific issue or issues as they are. It is allowed for him in this case to leave the rule he has reached through his Ijtihad and follow the other Mujtahid in whose Ijtihad he has more confidence than his own.
Third: If the Khaleefah adopts a rule which conflicts with the rule arrived at through his Ijtihad. In such an event he is obliged to leave the rule reached at by his Ijtihad and take the rule which the imam (leader) has adopted.
Fourth: If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims, for the good of the Muslims. In such a situation it is allowed for the Mujtahid to leave what he reached by his Ijtihad, as happened with Uthman (r.a.) when he was given the bay'ah... However, this is permitted for the Mujtahid and not obligatory, as evidenced by ‘Ali refusal to leave his ijtihad for the Ijtihad of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.
However, this is permitted for the Mujtahid and not obligatory, as evidenced by ‘Ali refusal to leave his Ijtihad for the Ijtihad of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.... It has been correctly reported about ‘Umar that he said to Abu Bakr: ‘We hold opinions in accordance with your opinion.' It has also been correctly reported about ‘Umar that when he found himself completely at a loss to find in the Qur'an and Sunnah what was needed when two disputing parties come to him, that he would see if Abu Bakr had a decision in the matter. If he found that Abu Bakr had passed a certain judgment on the issue he would pass the same judgment. It has been authentically reported about Ibn Mas'ud (r.a.) that he used to adopt the opinion of ‘Umar (r.a.). That used to take place before the eyes and ears of the Sahaba in numerous incidents and no one objected. Thus, it became a tacit ijma' (ijma' sukuti)." Ends.
4. The Legislative Texts concerning pledging Bayah to a Khaleefah contradicts the restriction on his duration, because the Bayah which was pledged to the Prophet (saw) and the Bayáh pledged to the righteous Khulafaa' was to rule by the book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw), thus this is its constrainment, so if the Khaleefah leaves the ruling by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw), his leadership ends according to the legislative rulings regarding this matter, which have outlined the way to isolate the Khaleefah and the validity of the Grievances... and adding another restriction is therefore impermissible because it contravenes with the Texts of the Bayah, which is to rule by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), as proved in the Sunnah and the Consensus of the Sahaba:
As for the Sunnah:
Bukhari also reported on the authority of Ubada Ibnus-Samit who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us so we gave him the pledge of allegiance, of which included:
«أَنْ بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا، وَعُسْرِنَا وَيُسْرِنَا، وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْنَا، وَأَنْ لَا نُنَازِعَ الْأَمْرَ أَهْلَهُ»
"We pledge ourselves to him in complete obedience, in well and woe, in ease and hardship in preference over ourselves, and that we would not dispute with the people in authority" and he (saw) said:
«إِلَّا أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا عِنْدَكُمْ مِنَ اللهِ فِيهِ بُرْهَانٌ»
"Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah." This was also reported by Muslim.
Muslim also reported on the authority of Yahya bin Hussain, that his grandmother reported, he said: I heard her say: that she heard the Prophet (saw) saying:
«إِنْ أُمِّرَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَبْدٌ مُجَدَّعٌ - حَسِبْتُهَا قَالَتْ - أَسْوَدُ، يَقُودُكُمْ بِكِتَابِ اللهِ تَعَالَى، فَاسْمَعُوا لَهُ وَأَطِيعُوا»
"If a slave is appointed over you and he conducts your affairs according to the Book of Allah, you should listen to him and obey (his orders)."
It is therefore apparent from all of this that the continuation of the Bayah and obedience is a must as long as the ruling is conducted by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), except if open Kufr is witnessed i.e. a definitive violation of the Shara'.
As for the Consensus of the Sahaba, the Bayah which was pledged to the Righteous Khulafaa' was to rule by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), it was not pledged for a limited period, their Bayah was pledged in front of a number of the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, hence it was a consensus on not limiting the period of the Khaleefah, but his continuation depends on his obedience to Allah (swt) and to the Prophet of Allah (saw), i.e. ruling by what Allah has revealed. It was reported by Muammar bin Rashed in his collection, saying: Abu Bakr delivered a sermon in which he said:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي قَدْ وُلِّيتُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَسْتُ بِخَيْرِكُمْ... أَطِيعُونِي مَا أَطَعْتُ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ، فَإِذَا عَصَيْتُ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَلَا طَاعَةَ لِي عَلَيْكُمْ، قُومُوا إِلَى صَلَاتِكُمْ يَرْحَمْكُمُ اللَّهُ
"O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you.... Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. And if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience. Stand up now to pray, may Allah have mercy on you."
It is apparent from these evidences that the period is unlimited, but what is stipulated is the Khaleefah's obedience to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw), so as long as the Khaleefah rules by what Allah (swt) has revealed, then his leadership continues, and if he violates one definitive text, his leadership stops even if it lasted for one or two months... this is in accordance to the legislative rulings regarding the isolation of the Khaleefah and the validity of the Judge of Grievances...
5. As for what had occurred in the appointment of a Khaleefah after Omar (ra), and that they made a condition to Abdul Rahman bin Awf - who was delegated to ask the people which Khaleefah they want - that they will only pledge allegiance to the Khaleefah whom, if an issue is presented to him which had occurred during the times of the two previous Khulafah, and which Abu Bakr and Omar had passed their Hukm (ruling) on it, then he is to follow (make Taqleed on) their ruling in this matter, and that he should not make his own Ijtihad in it; but Ali (ra) refused this, and preferred to make his own Ijtihad in every matter, and Uthman (ra) accepted this condition so they pledged allegiance to him. It is permissible for them to put forth this condition, and it is permissible for him (Uthman (ra)) to either accept and make Taqleed or reject and make his own Ijtihad, because it is permissible for a Mujtahid to make Taqleed to another Mujtahid as we outlined previously about the Taqleed of a Mujtahid to another Mujtahid during the time of the Sahaba (ra).
In conclusion, putting forth a condition in contracts is permissible as long as it does not violate the Sharí texts, otherwise it is not permissible and invalid, and because the condition to limit the duration of a Khaleefah is contrary to the Bayah text which is fixed in the Sunnah and the Consensus of the Sahabah, which is to rule by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), it is therefore not allowed to put a condition to limit the duration of the Khaleefah who is being appointed.
Hizb ut Tahrir members organized a women's seminar on the Island of Kerkennah titled:
"Regime Crisis after Ben Ali and Mubarak, Results and Alternative"
Saturday, 01 Dhul Qiddah 1434 AH, corresponding to 07 September 2013
.jpg)
Picture Slideshow: Click Here
