On Saturday 20th of July, the government of Pakistan announced it was contemplating on releasing a copy of the 336-page Abbottabad Commission Report on the country's intelligence failures during the killing of Osama bin Laden. Despite government deliberations on whether to release the report or not, the leaked version has done irreparable damage to standing of the armed forces and to a lesser extent the civilian leadership.

The report paints a damning picture about the conduct of the government and the military over the past decade or so in their collective failure to detect Osama bin Laden. Extracts from the report such as "breath-taking incompetence and irresponsibility" and "culpable negligence and incompetence at almost all levels of government" is extremely critical of the civilian and military leadership. Nonetheless, it is the blame apportioned to the intelligence community that resonates most for many Pakistanis. The report states: "It is a glaring testimony to the collective incompetence and negligence, at the very least, of the security and intelligence community in the Abbottabad area".  Yet despite such glaring criticisms both the government and the military go about their business as if it is business as usual. Nothing epitomises this better than the current debate about who will succeed Ashfaq Parvez Kayani  the current Chief of Army Staff (COAS) after he retires on November 28, 2013.

But before we address this topic the issue of culpability of Pakistan's military leaders behind the Abbotabad fiasco has to be addressed. There are three principal figures that need to be tried for this humiliating event namely: Musharraf, his protégé Kayani and his accomplice Pasha. Musharraf is the principal architect behind the intelligence failures. He established the edifice for Pakistan's co-operation with the Americans in 2001. This mainly consisted of Pakistani armed forces either looking the other way or being complicit with America, as she prosecuted her war on terror inside Pakistan with impunity.  After Musharraf's ouster from office, the mantle of subjugating Pakistani armed forces to America's whim was given to the present COAS, Ashfaq Kayani (the former ISI Chief under Musharraf) who ostensibly appeared more enthusiastic than ever to help America entrench its tentacles deeper into Pakistan. During his tenure as COAS, Kayani was aided and abetted by the ISI Chief Shuja Pasha in making sure that the Pakistani army  was unable to mount an effective response prior to, during and in the aftermath of the US forces raid into Abbotabad.

None of these principal culprits have been tried. The Abbottabad Commission cowardly shies away from holding the three responsible for any crimes committed against the Pakistani state. Not even the lesser charge of dismissing Kayani for gross incompetence gets a mention. Hence assertions in the report such as describing America's Abbotabad operation as "act of war" or "a criminal act of murder" is no more than fiery rhetoric and a  great diversion from the naked truth about the treachery committed by the three perpetrators.

Without bringing the three army leaders to justice, no one will ever know who else was involved in rendering the Pakistani armed forces ineffective and paralysed during the Abbotabad raid. This is very important and it brings me to the next point-who should be the next COAS.  Nawaz Sharif has to find a replacement for Kayani when he retires from office in a few months. Nawaz Sharif should be weary. After all he was removed twice by Gen Waheed Kakar and Gen Pervez Musharraf during his two previous terms in office. At present three names that are being touted: Lt Gen Haroon Aslam, Lt Gen Rashad Mahmood and Lt. Gen Raheel Sharif. But we will never know what role-if any- these individuals played in supporting Musharraf, Kayani and Pasha in the Abbotabad debacle. More importantly, we will never know whether these candidates have supported or abstained from joining America's war on terror, which includes: military operations into the tribal areas at the behest of the Americans, American drone strikes, the Raymond Davis affair, abduction of Aafia Siddiqui, and American attempts to undermine Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The only significant factor in assessing their candidature appears to be how pro-American they are compared to their predecessors-all of whom have served their American masters with distinction. This then implies there will be no change in the mindset of the military leadership and it will continue its subservience to America. This will bring more misfortunes like the Abbotabad incident, spawn greater inquiries and reports, but will produce no substantive action to thwart the on-going humiliation suffered at the hands of Pax-Americana.

Some have sought to upend Pakistan's close military ties to America, and instead of being treated as heroes are swiftly incarcerated and charged with treason. The case of Brigadier Ali is a noteworthy example. While this may seem an oddity in armed forces dominated by America, it does represent an emerging trend across the Muslim world and is not confined to the shores of Pakistan. Army officers have tried similar feats in Bangladesh, Egypt, Syria, Turkey etc. to break America's stranglehold over their people but have not succeeded to date.  Washington's effort to seek out and promote pro-American officers ahead of others is a double edged sword. Adhering to such scripts means that governments and militaries throughout the Muslim world run the increasing risk of being toppled by anti-American officers whose loyalties lie with Islam and not with the West or her surrogates. For American analysts like Bruce Riedel and John R. Schmidt it is only a matter of time before this happens to Pakistan. This is what Riedel had to say: "We face the potential of a nuclear-armed state run by Islamic extremists."

Abed Mostapha

Hizb ut Tahrir members and supporters continue to decorate Masjid al Aqsa's courtyards with its banners, posters, and flags.  On July 19, 2013, speakers delivered speeches concerning Muslims situations especially about the events in Egypt. Every Friday in Ramadan, banners with slogans reading, "Khilafah "Caliphate" will liberate the Aqsa, rescue the Muslims, and save humanity" filled the courtyards of the mosque.  More than 400,000 worshippers attended the Jumaah prayer, many took pictures of the banners and slogans.  Alhamdulillah, the events were to its fullest and representative of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir Dr. Maher Jabari had participated in the events.  The events concluded with duaa to reestablish the Khilafah "Caliphate" on the methodology of the Prophethood.

Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Palestine

Picture Slideshow: Click Here

The statement of Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan regarding the Khilafah "Caliphate" has sparked much controversy and debate, and this statement was in an episode recorded by Rotana channel prior to month of Ramadan, was aired on Saturday, July 13, 2013, and in this statement he said the following: "If the Righteous Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" is to be established, it must be launched from the land of the two Holy Mosques - Saudi Arabia - just as it had started, it will return from here once more"...

Question:

As-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakaatuhu to the noble Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah, may Allah protect him.

May I please ask you for your time and patience to answer the following questions?

The Jordanian Minister of Endowments and Holy Islamic Affairs (Awqaaf) said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) practised Taqiyyah and that this is mentioned in a Quranic text and noble Hadith and that there exists an incorrect belief that it is from the Shi'a Madh'hab (school of thought) citing the ayah:

((ِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ))

"Except for the one who is coerced (forced) whilst his heart remains firmly content upon belief (Imaan)." [An-Nahl: 106]

And the saying of the Messenger (saw): "إن في معاريض الكلام لمندوحة عن الكذب" "Allusions (Ma'aareed) in the speech is Manduhah (avoidance) from telling a lie." He also mentioned that the Messenger (saw) practised Taqiyyah when the desert Arab asked him where he was from and he (saw) answered by saying "من ماء" ‘min maa' meaning of ‘maa'in maheen' (water i.e. semen).

He asked the judges: Is this not Taqiyyah? Just as the qudaa' (judges) were severe about their rejection of calling the Shi'a disbelievers affirming that they are Muslims as long as they bear witness to one God and Muhammad as His Messenger.

And he said that the difference between the Taqiyyah Ash-Shari'ah (legitimate Taqiiyah) and that of the Shi'a is that the latter consider it as part of the fundamentals of the Deen and of the matters that have to be believed in. Indeed there is no Deen of Imaan who does not possess At-Taqiyyah. In contrast the legitimate Taqiyyah falls into the branches (furoo') and not the fundamentals (Usool). And there is no problem whether a Muslim takes it or leaves it.

The question: Is his Istidlaal (deduction) with the Ayah and the Hadeeth correct in regards to the issue of At-Taqiyyah? And is what he said in regards to the difference between the Taqiyyah Ash-Shari'ah and the Taqiyyah of the Shi'a correct?

Allah (swt) said:

((لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً))

"Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination." [Aali-Imraan: 28]

Ibn Jareer said: "The Taqiyyah that Allah has mentioned in this verse only means making Taqiyyah from the disbelievers and not from other than them." And Sa'eed Ibn Jubair said: "There is no Taqiyyah in Islam but rather the Taqiyyah is only for the people of war."

What is the intended meaning of the noble Ayah of Taqiyyah?

Is it possible for us to say that all of the Shi'a are Muslims despite their statement that the Quran has been distorted, their cursing upon the Khulafaa Ar-Rashidun (ra) and their position to Sayiduna Ali (ra) (may Allah honour him)?

With all appreciation and gratitude to you.

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Assalaam Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu,

The Minister has mixed between three matters and placed them all into one mould for some reason or another and we do not want to say more than that!

The first matter: The Taqiyyah in the noble Ayah: ((إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)) "Unless you protect yourselves from them by way of precaution." [Aali-Imraan: 28]

The second matter is the noble Ayah: ((إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ)) "Except for the one who is coerced (forced) whilst his heart remains firmly content upon belief (Imaan)." [An-Nahl: 106]

And the third matter is the Hadeeth of the Messenger (saw) recorded by Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi (deceased: 458 AH) in ‘Sha'b Al-Imaan' narrated by Mutarraf Bin Abdullah who said: "We came to Kufa from Basra along with Imran Bin Husain and he said: "Allusions (Ma'aareed) in the speech is Manduhah (avoidance) from telling a lie." This is Saheeh and Mawqoof (chain of transmission does not trace back to the Prophet (saw)). Extracted by Ibn ul-A'araabi (Deceased: 340 AH) in his ‘Mu'jam' Marfoo'an (traces back to the Prophet (saw)). He said: Dawud Bin Az-Zibriqaan narrated from Sa'eed from Qataadah from Zuraarah Bin Abi Awfaa from ‘Imraan Bin Hussein that the Prophet (saw) said:

«إِنَّ فِي الْمَعَارِيضَ مَنْدُوحَةً عَنِ الْكَذِبِ»

"Allusions (Ma'aareed) in the speech is Manduhah (avoidance) from telling a lie."

Each of these three matters has its own subject area and it is not permitted to bind them with different subjects. To further clarify this we reply:

Firstly: As for the Taqiyyah that is permitted by the Shariah (Islamic legislation), it is that which is between the Muslim and the disbelievers (Kuffar) when a Muslim lives amongst them and under their authority and will be subject to great suffering from them if he does not display his loyalty and love for them. In this scenario it is permitted for him to display his affection towards them with his tongue and not his heart. However it is not permitted for a Muslim to display to another Muslim the opposite of what he holds from within and this applies to all Muslims whether from the Muslim masses or from specific persons like the oppressive ruler, as this is not permitted by the Shariah.

The evidence for this is the text of the noble Ayah of the Quran and its subject area. As for the text, Allah (swt) says:

لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ

"Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination." [Aali-Imraan: 28]

As for the subject of the noble Ayah, it is clear in its text: It is the befriending or showing loyalty of the Muslims to the disbelievers i.e. to display friendship to them. So the text states: ((لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ)) "Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers." And when an Ayah or Ahadith are mentioned in a specific subject then it remains specific to that subject and does not include other subjects.

So the Ayah was revealed when the Muslims who had not emigrated and remained in Makkah under the authority of the disbelievers of Quraish. They were overcome in their situation and if they were to reveal themselves then they would face enmity or the lack of loyalty then they would be exposed to severe harm. Therefore the Ayah made the case of these an exception to the general rule. The meaning of the Ayah is therefore: A strong prohibition for Muslims giving loyalty to the disbelievers in any form (or display) of loyalty and the severity of the prohibition came in the words of Allah (swt): ((وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ )) "And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah." Then the Ayah made an exception of a single case i.e. the situation that is similar to the situation of the Muslims who did not emigrate from Makkah and remained under the authority of the disbelievers of Quraish, overtaken in their affair whilst they used to warn them of severe harm befalling them if they displayed enmity or lack of loyalty towards them. So this represents a case of exception.

As such displaying affection to the Muslim ruler out of fear of harm from him whilst he is a Zhaalim (oppressor) and Faasiq (rebellious to Allah's commands) who rules with Kufr (rules of disbelief) is Haram. Similarly displaying affection to the Muslim who disagrees with your (Islamic) view whilst keeping hatred for it inside is Haram. Pretending or giving the appearance that you do not abide by Islam or that you do not care for it in front of a disbeliever or in front of a Faasiq or Zhaalim is not permitted. All of these examples and those which are similar to them are Nifaaq (hypocrisy) which the Shar'a (Islamic legislation) has made Haram upon the Muslims. This is the case where the subject of the Ayah: ((إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)) "except when taking precaution against them in prudence." This is restricted to the reality of the case of the Muslims who were in Makkah living amongst the Mushrikeen.

At-Tabari (deceased: 310 AH) said in his Tafseer: [The opinion in relation to interpreting His (swt) saying: ((لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ)) "Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers." Until His (swt) saying: ((إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)) "except when taking precaution against them in prudence." Abu Ja'far said: This is a forbiddance from Allah (‘azza wa jalla) for the believers to take the Kuffar as helpers, supporters and allies (against believers) unless you (believers) are under their authority and you fear for yourselves from them so you display loyalty to them by your tongues... And you do not encourage them upon the Kufr (disbelief) that they are upon and you do not aid them with any action against a Muslim].

Therefore what they call Taqiyyah is negated and its meaning is to display to a believer that which goes against what he holds inside himself to the Zhaalim (oppressor) ruler or the Faasiq (rebellious to Allah's commands) who holds power, or someone who goes against the opinion or what is similar to that. This act is prohibited because it is Nifaaq (hypocrisy) and Nifaaq as a whole is Haram (prohibited).

Secondly: The noble Ayah: ((مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ)) "Who disbelieves in Allah after having Iman (belief) except for the one who is coerced (forced) whilst his heart remains firmly content upon belief (Iman)." Its subject area is the subject of disbelief after belief so the subject is about apostatizing from Islam. Whilst the case described here is the case where there is fear of certain death and this is what the Fuqahaa jurisprudence scholars have named Al-Ikraah Al-Malja' (compulsion of refuge) and this is the only compulsion considered by the Shariah (Islamic legislation) from all of the types of Ikraah (compulsion) in which the Hukm upon the one being compelled is suspended. So the Ikraah (compulsion) that is excluded by the Shariah is the Ikraah Al-Malja' and this is the case where death is feared for certain. It was revealed in relation to Ammar Bin Yassir (ra) who they took, tortured and killed his mother and father because they refused to disbelieve. They were torturing Ammar with the severest of tortures until he was close to being killed like his mother and father. At that time Ammar spoke a word of (Kufr) disbelief. At-Tabari said: [Ibn Abdul ‘Aalaa told us: Muhammad bin Thawr narrated from Mu'mar from Abdul Kareem Al-Jazari from Abu ‘Ubaid Bin Muhammad bin Ammar Bin Yassir who said: The Mushrikeen (polytheists) took Ammar Bin Yassir and they tortured him until he complied to what they desired. So he told this to the Prophet (saw) so the Prophet (saw) said:

«كيف تجد قلبك؟ قال: مطمئناً بالإيمان، قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: فإن عادوا فعد»

"How did you find your heart?" He said, ‘Assured with belief.' The Prophet (saw) said: "Then if they return then return." Therefore the cause (Sabab) of the revelation of this Ayah was the incident involving Ammar Bin Yassir (ra) and its subject matter is that of apostasy from Islam and the specific circumstance is the fear of certain death. This in itself is sufficient to make clear that there is no relationship between it and the Ayah:

((إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)) "except when taking precaution against them in prudence."

Whereas this Ayah was revealed in Makkah and its subject is Imaan (belief): ((إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ)) "Except for the one who is coerced (forced) whilst his heart remains firmly content upon belief (Iman)."

The ayah: ((إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)) "except when taking precaution against them in prudence" was revealed in Madinah and its subject matter is believers showing loyalty to the disbelievers with the exceptional case as explained earlier. As such this is not the same as the other and is not linked with one another due to the difference in the case and the subject area. So the Muslim who is under the authority of the Kuffar (disbelievers) and is overcome in his affair, it is not permissible for him to openly apostatise from Islam to evade them. Rather it is obligatory for him to make Hijrah (emigrate) if he is unable to abide by the rules of his Deen. This is different from showing loyalty with the tongue without loyalty of the heart which is permitted. However if a Muslim fears for himself that he will be killed for sure and is coerced and forced upon Kufr (disbelief) then it is permitted for him to display the Kufr whilst concealing his Iman. Therefore the plain difference between these two noble Ayat is evident.

Thirdly: The Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) which is Marfoo' (Chain of transmission reached the Prophet) and Mawqoof (chain of transmission does not trace back to the Prophet) and states: «إِنَّ فِي الْمَعَارِيضِ مَنْدُوحَةً عَنِ الْكَذِبِ» "Allusions (Ma'aareed) in the speech is Manduhah (avoidance) from telling a lie." Then this is related to the subject of Tawriyah (ambiguity) and it does not fall within the topic of lying or display of the concealed. Rather it relates to the subject of Sidq (truthfulness). To use a word that carries two meanings: One is far whilst the other is near, so the near meaning comes to the mind whilst what is intended is the far meaning. This is the meaning of ‘Ma'aareed' (allusions).

It is mentioned in ‘Mukhtaar As-Sihhaah' (Dictionary): [At-Ta'reed (allusions) is the opposite of At-Tasreeh (Explicitness) and from it is Al-Ma'aareed in speech and this is Tawriyah (alluding) to a thing by another thing]. And in regards to Manduhah, Abu Ubaid said it means room and space. The meaning then is that the use of Ma'aareed or Tawriyah (allusion) is a way of avoiding the lie. An example of this is the answer given by the Messenger of Allah (saw) to the old man when he asked him: ‘Where are you from?' So the Messenger (saw) said: ‘We are from water'. This is Tawriyah and not Taqiyyah: It was mentioned in the Seerah of Ibn Hisham: [The Messenger (saw) and Abu Bakr were reconnaissancing the news about the Quraish... They then descended close to Badr so he and one of his companions were riding. Ibn Hisham said: The man was Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq. Ibn Ishaq said just as Mohammed Bin Yahya Bin Hibbaan told me: (They continued) until they halted at an old man from the Arabs, so he (saw) asked him about Quraish, Muhammad and his companions and what news or information had reached him about them. So the elder said: I will not inform you until you tell me from where you have come from? So the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: If you tell us we will tell you. So he asked: This (information) for that? He (saw) replied: ‘Yes.' The elder said it has reached me that Muhammad and his companions have gone out on so and so day and if the one who told me this has told the truth then they will have reached on this day so and so place, the place where the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his companions were. And it has reached me that the Quraish left on so and so day and if the one who informed me spoke the truth, then they (Quraish) would have reached so and so location. Then when he had finished informing them this he asked: So where are you from? So the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘We are from water.' And then he turned away to leave from him. He said: The elder said: From water, from the water of Iraq? Ibn Hisham said that the elder was called Sufyan Ad-Damariy.

Thus the Messenger of Allah (saw) answered the question of the elder about where they were from and said: "نحن من ماء", ‘We are from water', he (saw) used the speech of Tawriyah and Ma'aareed (allusion) because ‘water' holds the meaning of normal water and it also holds the meaning of the water of life which is the discharge from which the embryo is created. What came to the elder's mind that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was from a village or region that was characterised by the presence of water like what the Arabs used to describe. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not use Taqiyyah because Taqiyyah is not permitted except when the Muslim lives in a place where his affair is dominated over under the rule of the Kuffar (disbelievers) in order to defend against their evil and harm. Other than this situation, it is not permitted because it would be lies and hypocrisy and far be it to claim that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did that because he is the Messenger of Allah (saw) - the truthful and the one who is believed.

Thereby the minister erred by claiming that the Messenger (saw) utilised Taqiyyah perhaps he may read this answer and then seeks forgiveness from Allah (swt) and repentance from Him. We hope that he does this as we love for every Muslim to be guided to the truth and seek repentance for the sin just as the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«كُلُّ ابْنِ آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ» "Every son of Adam sins and the best of sinners are those who seek repentance." (At-Tirmidhi).

As for the question regarding the Shi'a who follow the Ja'fari Madh'hab then they are upon the foundation of the Muslims however the one who says that the Quran has been altered and ‘Ta'liyah' of ‘Ali (ra) then he is a disbeliever (Kaffir) and is not considered from among the Muslims.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

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