The documentary film was presented at the annual assembly organized by Hizb ut Tahrir / Wilayah Lebanon marking the anniversary of the Battle of Badr, in this year's assembly titled: "Signs of the Ummah's Progress and the Decline of Western Hegemony"
Saturday, 18 of Ramadan 1434 AH corresponding to 27 July 2013
Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Lebanon Assembly: "Signs of the Ummah's Progress and the Decline of Western Hegemony"
Event:
MUAR: The Government will not trade off Malaysia's dignity and lead it to bankruptcy in regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations held in Kota Kinabalu last week.
Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry Datuk Hamim Samuri said the government would not ink any agreement without considering the views of all concerned parties and safeguarding the people's rights.
"This is evident from the nation's earnings of around RM200bil annually from international trade," he said at a zakat presentation to 120 orphans and breaking of fast under the SME Bank social corporate responsibility programme at the Pekan Bukit Gambir Mosque here Friday night.
He further assured that the people had no cause to be anxious about the TPPA negotiations as they had not been finalised.
"As a developing country that depends on international trade, Malaysia cannot isolate itself but must participate in such negotiations," he said.
Meanwhile, Hamim described the objections of non-governmental organisations in Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur to the negotiations as politically motivated. - Bernama. [Source: The Star Online]
Comment:
For the past few weeks, in anticipation to the upcoming rounds of talks in Kuala Lumpur on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), there had been dissenting voices in Malaysia on this opaque agreement fathered by the US and to be agreed upon by 10 other pacific countries, possibly by the end of this year. Much of the negotiations and documentations related to this agreement are kept in secrecy, although some has been leaked. Incomplete information on TPPA has in turn resulted in various speculations and arguments for and against Malaysia signing the agreement. The upcoming visit of Barack Obama to Malaysia en route to Brunei is also said to catalyse the Malaysian government's desire to sign the agreement, tentatively in October 2013. It is quite clear that TPPA is not just about trade. Its leaked chapters show that TPPA also involve sectors such as the various public services, government procurement, intellectual property etc. Agreeing to a free trade agreement such as TPPA means that local laws and policies must undergo drastic changes which will surely affect the domestic economy and the society as a whole.
Clearly, the ensuing discussion on TPPA is a manifestation of the public anxiety over the inherent evils of capitalism. Capitalism has a battery of armaments in ensuring its survival. One of its most effective survival weaponry is the promotion of free trade. Fundamentally, free trade has a positive connotation but lean it towards capitalism, it becomes the most effective and efficient method of ensuring domination and hegemony of major capitalist economies over economically weaker countries. Often, free trade is conveyed as a platform where all participating countries would be able to trade freely, liberalising a huge market where business deals can be made in a fair, highly profitable manner. TPPA is said to provide such a platform for the 11 participating countries. But is this really true? Is it true that by signing a free trade agreement, a country would be able to reap the promised benefits? In reality what is promised is nothing more than a façade. Free trade agreements such as TPPA are not an equal partnership that stands for mutual gain. It is a one-sided binding agreement which protects the interest of investing foreign companies, especially from US, enabling them to undermine weaker countries and consolidating their hegemony over these countries.
Free trade agreements in the world over convey myths and unseen traps which economically weak countries fall into much too often. These agreements are frequently presented as catalysts of development and economic stability. However, what has been happening to the world economy within the past two decades have certainly proven this wrong. In the name of globalization, we see frequent economic crisis, we see countries being stripped bare, unable to protect themselves from waves of foreign financial attacks, and we see wealth being stolen from right in front of our eyes by unscrupulous international conglomerates and speculators.
This is capitalism. This is a system that breeds on pillars built on freedom; freedom to own anything one likes, freedom to say anything one wishes, freedom to believe in anything one feels comfortable with and freedom to express oneself the way he or she likes. This is a system that never guarantees the basic livelihood of an individual and a system that have clearly manifested its unfairness in undeniable ways since its inception until today. Yet, man still clings to this system, despite knowing very well that this is the very system that brings so much misery and despair to him. For Malaysia, signing the agreement would mean opening up the country to unscrupulous capitalists bent on usurping the wealth of the country. But in reality, Malaysia and other Muslim countries have already signed this ‘agreement', knowingly or unknowingly, by agreeing to implement capitalism and to live by it. Consequently, when a certain part of capitalism is seen to be unfair, a solution within the system is searched for, only to find more unfairness and more grief and this is what one would expect in a system created by man. Allah SWT has endowed upon man a perfect system, a system that solves all problems of mankind. Man, Muslims in particular, should take heed and learn from the disastrous and detrimental manifestations of capitalism and look into history to see that the perfect system of Islam had been implemented before and only by re-implementing this system under the umbrella of the Khilafah "Caliphate" that growth, stability and equality can really be achieved and sustained.
Dr. Muhammad
Malaysia
On Friday 17 Ramadan 1434 AH corresponding to 07/26/2013, supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir held halaqat and lectures in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, speakers addressed the crowds about various political topics relating to matters of Muslims, such as the events in Egypt, and the need for the rule of the Quran to prevail in Egypt, and that this can not be through the republican or democratic system, but through the application of the law of Allah and to declare Egypt an Islamic caliphate state.
Speakers also stressed the sanctity of Muslim blood and the sanctity of the fighting for the sake of the rulers' chairs and positions, and they also criticized America who stands behind the events in Egypt, and behind the alleged democracy in the beginning and then stood behind the coup.
Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Palestine
Picture Slideshow: Click Here
The emotional acknowledgement of accepting the existence of Allah Ta'ala is a natural disposition for all human beings at all periods since creation of the first human being. This condition will continue to manifest itself in human beings at all times despite there being various efforts termed ‘development' that object to the whole concept of religion on the pretext of ‘sufficiency of science and technology'.
This feeling is the condition that stirs in a human being to a point that he directly senses the existence of the Creator of the world and Creator of all beings himself included. The Creator who has limitless authority over human beings and what surrounds them. A demonstration of this feeling is the sense of man that clearly shows his physical weakness e.g. his need for air to breathe, food, sickness and ultimately death. All these gives man an inner understanding about his weakness and acknowledgement of the existence of Allah Ta'ala, the Almighty, who has authority and abilities beyond limit. This is the meaning of ‘Fitra' i.e. the natural disposition that man was created with.
However, some human beings are seen outwardly based on their pride and haughtiness to deny the existence of the Creator, but inwardly, this matter cannot be denied. Basically, it is intended to lie in front of people. Allah Ta'ala tells us of Fir-aun and his people:
((وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْ ظُلْمًا وَعُلُوًّا فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ))
"And they belied them (our signs) wrongfully and arrogantly though their ownselves were convinced thereof. So see what the end of the evildoers was!" [TMQ 27:14]
Also the fourth Khilafah "Caliphate", Imam Ali (ra), says:
"Allah has two arguments against man i.e. the open argument (Dhwaahirah) and the hidden argument (Baatwinah). The open argument concerns Prophets and Messengers and the hidden argument is the mind".
Darwin, the originator of the ‘evolution' theory which presumes the origin of man is from apes! (May Allah protect us from this foolishness), was once asked while on his deathbed a few days before passing away: "What do you say about the beauty of various things. Is it possible that the handiwork of such things is the work of the human mind and not the work of Allah"? Darwin looked keenly at the Duke of Argyle and answered: "That feeling (of there being a Creator) has persistently been strong in me but at sometimes, it was as if it is not on my mind." (Hayward Alan, God Is, uk.113)
After man attains this understanding of the existence of Allah Ta'ala, he has no option but require some form of worship to show his obedience and humility to his Creator who controls his life. Based on this reality, it is the reason that man at all times has been making various worships to demonstrate his obedience and humility to the God he worships. This condition was evident even during the period of threats, authoritarianism and dictatorship of the false communist ideology which was a major denier of religion. However, the greatest thing it could manage was to remove the public from their old worships and alternatively direct them to a new idol worship of communist leaders. Therefore, in earnest, Communism failed to prevent the natural perception of worship by their people but instead it changed the type of worship.
Following the natural requirement by man to worship Allah Ta'ala, at all times Allah Ta'ala has been sending Messengers (as). First, with the objective to elaborate to man the attributes of the Creator with comprehensive elaboration so that those attributes are not given to anyone else or being given attributes that are not His. Second is to inform man solutions to all their problems in life. Lastly, to educate them on the correct type of worship so that man attains peace by obeying his Lord and satisfying his natural thirst of worshipping his Creator.
Based on this, it is the reason our Prophet Muhammad (saw) who is the last Prophet was given various types of worship e.g. Salat (prayer), Hajj, Fasting etc. so that from those worships, we show our humility to our Creator Allah Ta'ala and satisfy our natural thirst of worshipping our Creator.
Therefore, from the mercy and glory of Allah, He has given us this noble worship of Fasting in Ramadhan. It is one of the major worships that he revealed to us so as to get the taste of submission and our hearts get tranquility by worshipping our only Lord.
It has strongly been recommended that we adhere to this worship. In a hadith of Abu Hurairah, quoting the Prophet (saw) as saying:
:عن أبي هريرة ( رضي الله عنه ) أن رسول اللَّه ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) قال
"إذا دخل رمضان فُتِّحت أبواب الجنة، وغلقت أبواب جهنم، وسلسلت الشياطين"
"When Ramadhan is with us, doors of the heavens (Paradise) are opened, the doors of Jahannam are closed and the devils are chained" (Bukhari).
Therefore, let's enter the holy month of Ramadhan by striving to fast and perform various worships so as to get closer to Allah Ta'ala with one intention of cementing our bond with our Lord. It should not be for the purpose of haste to eat sweet meals or other worldly interests but to seek the pleasure of Allah Ta'ala while expecting his Paradise and fearing His Fire.
((وَأَنْ تَصُومُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ))
"And if you fast it is better for you if only you know" [TMQ 2:184]
Masoud Msellem
Question:
Given the course of events, it has disrupted my understanding of the happenings which confused me:
1. We know that the actual influence in Egypt belongs to America. Then how come Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait financially support the new rule in Egypt, when these countries have agency to Britain?
2. Furthermore, the UAE supported France in Mali and sent financial support to Mali, although the actual influence in Mali does not belong to Britain?
3. Also we observe conflictive media attitudes between the channel Al-Arabiya in the Emirates and the channel Al-Jazeera in Qatar, although the UAE and Qatar are both agents for the British. By the way, does the recent change in Qatar affect British politics in it?
4. Further it seems to us that the Saudi men in the coalition like al-Jarba possess an active role unlike the men of Qatar. Is weakness beginning to grab hold of the men of Qatar due to the course of events in Syria while strengthening the position of the men of Saudi Arabia?
5. Finally: Does America's abandonment of Morsi mean that they have abandoned the idea of facilitating the access of the so-called "moderate Islam" to power?
I hope that you bear with me through this long question and jazak Allahu khairan. I apologize in advance for the length and amount of questions, since we know the capacity of our Ameer in addition to the capacity of his knowledge. Let us find in him what dispels our confusion and heals our hearts.
Answer:
This dear brother is not a question but a stack of questions!! Nevertheless, here is the answer in brief though without inadequate, Inshallah:
There are broad guidelines concerning British policy to help you understand what is happening:
1. Britain currently does not dare to overtly stand in the face of America, rather it appears to stand in line with it, but actually it interferes with and obstructs American policy covertly through its agents after having worked out an action plan to appear in a deceptive manner...
2. Mainly the role prescribed to its agents by Britain is one of pretense - just like Britain itself - to be aligned with America without clashing with it. The relations between Jordan and America for example may seem to someone who does not possess political awareness as if it was standing in line with America, when actually Jordan is a bearing pillar of Britain, as this is with the Emirates and other agents... However, the British leave some of their agents to stand in the face of America, such as Qatar, their role being different from that of other agents and so on ... i.e. that its agents hold different roles: Most of them smile for America and boast their friendliness but harass it from behind the curtain, just like Britain who is the master of these agents, and only few of them carry the role of causing America inconvenience more obviously...
3. Britain is in harmony with France in confronting U.S. policy, as part of European policy, especially Britain and France, and the difference is that Britain acts with malice, subtleness with a deceptive soft voice towards America, while France behaves with a stark voice causing uproar ... Often Britain carries out its policy standing behind France! And the famous proverb goes: "Britain fights to the last French soldier". Although this was part of the times gone by, that impact is still there, but to a lesser extent.
4. The government in Saudi Arabia, although led by King Abdullah, is a follower of Britain, but the United States has an impact on some of the other princes, this impact is creating the gateway for America's policies...
In the light of this the answer to your question may become clearer:
A. As for Qatar, the former Emir of Qatar together with his Foreign Minister managed to make Qatar a center of focus for Britain in the Gulf, from there he dashed to intervene in several countries using two influential instruments: the media channel "Al-Jazeera", and "oil" money... His moves were influential in disrupting American politics in Syria and Palestine, even in Egypt and others... Since this disturbance of America did not go unnoticed by Britain, and because Britain is trying create the self-image that it does not disturb America, it has agreed to change that Emir, but they did not take it far away from him, rather his son became his alternative. Hence British policy has not changed, but this son needs time to become as effective as his father in causing America inconvenience, thus Britain has slowed down in disturbing America... Therefore what happened in a British manner to please America was by appearance but without substance!
B. The role of Qatar decreased slightly with this change because the men of the new rule are less experienced in influential political business than the men of the previous government, yet Qatar still remains within British politics, working cunningly and maliciously, but with a role of less declared effectiveness than it previously had, therefore their men in Syria have lost effectiveness in comparison to prior.
C. The Saudi men are more effective and more acceptable to the United States and Britain because the king's loyalty belongs to Britain, and America is working hard with some of the princes of the royal family.
As for Al-Jarba, albeit being close to Saudi Arabia, he is part of American politics. He cannot exit from America's influences voluntarily, no matter how great his support from Saudi Arabia is, the coalition as a whole is an American product, no one can remain in its presidency without being subordinate to America.
D. As for Mali, and the Emirati aid to Mali... You know that America was behind the first change in Mali that happened on 22/3/2012, which was a painful blow to France, and France worked diligently to regain its influence. And Britain understands that it has no influence in Mali as it is for France, and America rivals France, and naturally Britain supports France if the conflict is confined between America and France, and the Emirati financial aid to the administration which is loyal to France is in line with Britain's support of France.
E. As for the explanation of the British position on the visits of the Emirati delegation and the King of Jordan to Egypt, and the financial aid from Britain's agents to Egypt, this does not diverge from the above general outline ... As for the ambiguity caused by the difference between the Emirates' role and Qatar's role, it is the distribution of roles according to British policy, some draw near and some distance themselves pending the outcome of events in Egypt... And the Emirate's hosting of the men of Mubarak' regime likewise does not diverge from the outline, for the expectation of the return of Mubarak's men is an opening, even if it is narrow, for British policy by way of the Emirates, even if it is a matter of reciprocating favors!
F. As for whether America's abandonment of Mursi means that America has abandoned the facilitation of the return of the men who are called "moderate Islamists" to power; the issue is not about abandoned or the absence of abandonment, instead it is the realizing the stabilization of American influence in Egypt, and America's influence in Egypt has been strong in most of the political class for the past few decades, and America cares that Egypt remains a center of stable American influence, and the stability meant here is not for the good of Egypt, instead it is so that America can have a secure place for its influence and projects... and when the popular movements surprised America on 25/1/2011, and Mubarak could not handle these movements and return stability so that Egypt would be a suitable environment for maintaining the realization of America's interests, when America found him as such they set him aside, and rode the wave of the popular movements, and brought Mursi after he promised to carry out America's projects, especially the Camp David Accords with the Jewish entity, afterwards they supported him..., and America expected Mursi to achieve stability for it considering that the Brotherhood is the party of the President and the largest organized party after the disbanding of the National Party, and expected them to work to stabilize the situation just as the National Party had done with the deposed president... But Mursi could not so they abandoned him...and were behind the new rule on 3/7/2013 and in support of it...
Accordingly, America's abandonment of the people of "moderate Islam" in Egypt was due to a reason external to America's policy during recent years of facilitating the so- called "moderate Islamists" to power, as America undertook this policy to struck two birds with one stone as they say:
First: To deceive the Muslim masses who are looking for Islamic rule... for even though the "moderate Islamists" profess democracy and republicanism and swear by it! Because they are called "Islamists" they tickle the sentiments of the Muslim masses so they believe that those Islamists coming to power will bring Islam to power, and then their enthusiasm fades away from the correct work to bringing about the rule by Islam, which is the Khilafah "Caliphate" system... and the placating the Muslims' enthusiasm for the work for the Khilafah "Caliphate" is what America wants, for the Khilafah "Caliphate" keeps them awake at night...
Second: To provide stability for its influence by the Islamists taking advantage of the people's sentiment, as for if they could not provide stability for America's influence then America will abandon them, as they did with Mursi, and support someone else, especially since they have no shortage of political agents which they planted in Egypt throughout the past long years!
E. The people of the land of Kinana should fathom this matter, and that America is and was the possessor of actual influence in the toppled Mubarak's era, and in the deposed Mursi's era, and in the era of the present rule, and America is the disease and source of calamity, and the duty on every Muslim that believes in Allah and His Prophet is to work diligently to uproot American influence and eliminate America's agents, and return the rule of Islam, the Righteous Khilafah "Caliphate", to the land of Kinana to resume as the center of the Muslim to defeat the enemies of Islam and Muslims and to defeat the Jewish entity and to restore the Holy land to Islam and the Muslims as it did when it eradicated the Crusaders and Tatars, and this is not hard for Allah.
News:
Afghanistan's Parliament voted on Monday July 22, 2013 to disqualify one of the country's top security chiefs by impeaching the blow of expected withdrawal in 2014. "Afghan government is now at the hand of the wolves and I am alone unable to remove them." Said General Ghulam Mujtaba Patang, "The Government and Parliament should have a closer coordination in order to remove the wolves who actually rule all 3 forces of the country."
Comment:
A wolf speaking to other wolves clearly reflects their further coordination and assistance in making proper preys. Particularly, when the Halal and Haram bases as the sole standard of actions are replaced by limited human intellect and man-made laws. It is therefore that wolves, tigers and other prey seekers will dominant the space. Do the Government and the Parliament not call themselves defender of Islam and Muslims? Truly, they do so, but forgotten what Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned in His Book:
((وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَن ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنكاً وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَعْمَى))
"Whoever turns from my Zikr (Sharia, Ideology, and Way of Life), I'll give them constricted lives and they'll be blind on the Day of Judgment." [Taha: 124]
The preliminary students of Democracy in Afghanistan, occasionally admits the results of Capitalist Democracy in Afghan society. Similarly to what Gen. Ghulam Mujtaba Patang has clearly said in order to achieve the so called confidence vote of Parliament.
As well, every single seat in the ministries has its specific price among the MPs and the government. Furthermore, every directorate inside ministries along with local offices in the provinces has their special prices. Inside the Ministry of Interior under Gen. Mujtaba Patand, its headquarters and its sub-offices have their specific prices. Even check-posts inside cities, streets and vendors have to pay the government thugs.
Similarly, according to the report released by the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime in Afghanistan on Thursday, 07 February 2013, bribes paid in the country in 2012 totaled 3.9 billion USD, almost a quarter of the entire amount of aid the international community has pledged to Afghanistan in the Tokyo Conference equaling to the country's GDP from the last two years. However the total amount of the bribes paid to the officials in 2010 tolled to a sum of $2.5 billion.
Similar to that, on the 5th of December, 2012, in its new yearly report, Transparency International, an organization which does research and publishes reports on corruption, has titled Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea the most corrupt countries of the world. The report published in 2012, Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea got eight marks out of a hundred, and however, in the year 2011 and 2010 Afghanistan's position was listed as second receiving 15 and 11 marks respectively.
New York Times in its issue of April, stated that for more than a decade, bundles of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan's president. They were used for influencing ex-Mujahidin leaders or current democrats. All speak of tens of millions of dollars having flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. "We called it ‘ghost money,' " said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai's Deputy in Chief of Staff from 2002 until 2005. "The US is the main supporter of corruption in Afghanistan," said a US official. Various reports, published in recent years exposed millions of dollars called "Ghost Money" that are dropped off to the president's office by Iran and other countries in order to ensure their interest.
By considering the following points it becomes clear that both the Afghan Government and Crusaders admitted the existence of high scale corruption in the country, which is a direct result of implementing Capitalist Democracy. Hamid Karzai, the head of this broken regime after the escape of his Central Bank Chairman to the US said: "Individuals with dual citizenship do what they wish, then after corruption, they take their way to Washington, London, Paris and elsewhere." Moreover, Colonialist occupiers did not confine only in institutionalizing the corruption, but they went further, even that Gen. David Petraeus called the current corruption in Afghanistan as the historic heritage of Afghan Society. Meanwhile, the corruption that we observe today in Afghanistan, has never been seen throughout the history and they have no evidence to confirm it.
Such despondent situation in Afghanistan is the product of western invasions, Capitalistic ideas and democratic system, in the last twelve years. Because the crusaders invaders under the leadership of United States have not only invaded Afghanistan militarily rather the onslaught was ideological, cultural, political and economic in nature that changed the mindset of those Afghans that are part of the system to abandon Islamic Shariah as their sources to determine right and wrong. They were made to believe that they should decide their matter on the yard stick of ‘benefit' rather then what is prescribed and what is forbidden by the Islamic Shariah. Blessing and honor are made to search in the western values of materialism then Islam, which is to get the pleasure of Allah (swt). This whole malicious agenda is implemented by the Afghan government, propagated through the western backed media and sponsored by the crusaders both financially and militarily. This capitalistic ideology has only focused on few elites and has changed their lives, leaving the majority of the population in poverty, lawlessness and chaos.
The destruction of manmade system is not only the financial and administrative chaos rather has badly affected other spheres of life. For example, when communists use to take over a territory they use to kill almost 30% of their inhabitants through poverty, oppression, killings etc. Capitalism on other hand has caused two World Wars killing millions of human beings. Even today we witness western countries facing dire economic problems for which they can't find a viable solution.
Moreover, other problems that are there in other social spheres of life and have disturbed the whole social fabric are homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, soaring divorce rates etc are few just examples. However, if we look at the 1300 years history of Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" such problems, wars, mass killings of innocent human beings, sexual deviations and other such crimes were nonexistent.
It's not only Afghanistan that is suffering from all these ills due to western democracy and capitalism rather we see Iraq and Somalia also facing the same situation. Such manmade system has spread the behaviors called {eating of "suht"} among some Muslims, which means earning and devouring the forbidden that was the attitude of the cursed ones at the time of the Prophet (saw). For the Islamic Ummah the root cause of these difficulties and sufferings is the implementation of manmade ideologies instead of Islam.
We call upon you O' Noble Ummah of Muhammad (saw) to rise up and join Hizb ut Tahrir for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" following the methodology of the Prophet (saw).
((أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ بَدَّلُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ كُفْراً وَأَحَلُّواْ قَوْمَهُمْ دَارَ الْبَوَارِ * جَهَنَّمَ يَصْلَوْنَهَا وَبِئْسَ الْقَرَارُ ))
"Have you not seen those who have changed Allah's favor for ungratefulness and made their people to alight into the abode of perdition * into hell they will burn therein, - an evil place to stay in!" [Ibrahim: 28-9]
Saifullah Mustanir
Kabul, Wilayah Afghanistan
Question:
Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu
It is mentioned in the book, The Islamic State, on p.140: [Every person holding the citizenship of the State enjoys the full rights decreed for him by the Shari'ah, whether he is Muslim or not. Anyone not holding that citizenship is deprived of these rights, even if he were Muslim. For instance, if a Muslim man had a Christian mother who held the Islamic citizenship and a father who did not, then his mother would qualify to receive sustenance from him and his father would not. If the mother claimed it from him the judge would rule in her favour because she would be classified as a citizen of the Islamic State, whereas if the father attempted to do likewise the judge would reject his claim because he would not be classified as one of its citizens].
And the question here is: Irrespective of the person being Muslim or non-Muslim and irrespective of him holding citizenship for the Islamic State or not, is not obligatory upon the person to be dutiful to his parents (Bir al-Walidain)? And lower to them a wing of humility in mercy... And if this person commits violations and infringes upon individuals outside of the authority of the State who are foreigners and do not hold citizenship. Then these come to raise a complaint, will the Qadi (judge) dismiss their case on the basis of the argument that they do not carry the citizenship? Please clarify in detail. May Allah reward you with all goodness.
wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
Answer:
wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
There are two issues that are separate from one another: The Judicial ruling and Bir al-Walidain:
As for the first matter: The request of a person who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship to receive Nafaqah (financial spending) from family and relatives in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is because the difference in the Dar (homeland) diverts the financial rights from being obligatory. This is as the financial rights do not belong to those who are in Dar ul-Harb because the Messenger (saw) said in the Hadith extracted by Muslim narrated by Suleiman Bin Buraidah narrated from his father said:
كان رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْراً، ثُمَّ قَالَ... ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ....
"When the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him, he said.... Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and tell them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' unless they fight alongside the Muslims..."
And the statement of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the Hadith: وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ "...but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' (booty)" means that their refraining from migrating or joining (to the Dar of the Muhajireen) causes them to lose their right to benefit from the booty and spoils of war. All other types of funds are included by this in analogy to the booty and spoils of war, i.e. that their financial rights are withheld. Therefore, the Muslim who rejects moving to the Dar ul-Muhajireen if it exists according to the Shariah rules of the Hijrah and still retains the citizenship of the disbelieving (Kaffir) state, then this Muslim in relation to the rulings of money is like non-Muslims in respect of their exclusion from attaining its rights i.e. financial rights. So he does not have that which the Muslims possess (of rights) and he is not obliged with what the Muslims are (in terms of responsibilities). This means that the financial rules are not applied upon him because he did not move to the land (Dar) of the Muhajireen.
Therefore the claim of the father who resides in Dar ul-Harb upon his son who resides in Dar ul-Islam if it is a claim relating to a financial right like Nafaqah, then this claim is not accepted because of the differences in Dars (lands) which prevent the obligatory financial rights. This all relates to the first matter i.e. the judicial judgment in regards to financial rights.
As for the second matter which is Bir al-Walidain (dutifulness to parents), then this is a different matter as the differences in lands does not prevent being dutiful to the parents and maintaining ties with them. The evidence for this is the statement of Allah (swt):
(وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَى أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا)
"And we have enjoined on man to be good and dutiful to his parents, but if they strive to make you join with Me (in worship) anything (as a partner) of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not. Unto Me is your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do." [Al-Ankabut: 8]
Also what was collected by Al-Bukhari as narrated by Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (ra) who said: "My mother came to visit me at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and she was a Mushrik. So I consulted the Messenger of Allah, (saw) and asked him, ‘My mother wants to visit me and expects me to treat her kindly; should I uphold the ties of kinship with my mother?' He said, «نَعَمْ صِلِي أُمَّكِ» ‘Yes, uphold the ties of kinship with your mother'."
As for your question in regards to criminal acts, infringements and their like then this has different Ahkam (rulings). The difference in the Dar (land) does not prevent that but rather it is dealt with according to the specific Shariah rules with consideration of whether the land is in an actual belligerent state of war or potentially belligerent state or states with treaties, etc.
So for example the following Ayah:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَأً وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَأً فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا فَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
"And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise." [An-Nisaa: 92]
So the Ayah views that if the Muslim kills a Muslim by mistake in Dar ul-Harb Al-Fi'liyah (in actual state of war) (قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ) i.e. people who are your enemies, then the ruling is: (فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ ‘to free a believing slave'. And if he killed a Muslim from Dar ul-Harb that has a treaty with the Muslims i.e. from a people you have a treaty with, (قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ) then the ruling is: (فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ) "then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah." Therefore the financial rights differ from other matters and indeed the financial rights sometimes differ within the very same Dar (land). So for example, a Muslim does not inherit from a Kaffir and the Kaffir does not inherit from a Muslim even if both the Kaffir and Muslim both resided in Dar ul-Islam. The Messenger (saw) said: «وَلاَ يَرِثُ الْقَاتِلُ شَيْئاً» "And the killer does not inherit anything." (Abu Dawood). And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "The Kaffir does not inherit the Muslim and the Muslim does not the Kaffir." (Ahmad)
In conclusion, the Muslim who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship and he has rejected to move to Dar ul-Islam when it is in existence, his claim for financial rights upon his son who live in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is different to being dutiful to parents (Bir al-Walidain) and maintaining ties with them so the Muslim son is dutiful to his disbelieving parents and is good to them as long as they do not strive to make you associate partners to Allah (swt) or anything related like if the parent was to fight in the army who was actually engaging in warring in which case there are other Shariah rules...
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:
