Question

First Question

Our beloved Ameer, may Allah protect you, take care of you, and grant you victory,

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ قَالَ (جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْعَمَ إلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ : إنَّ أَبِي أَدْرَكَهُ الْإِسْلَامُ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ رُكُوبَ الرَّحْلِ ، وَالْحَجُّ مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ ؟ قَالَ: أَنْتَ أَكْبَرُ وَلَدِهِ ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ ، قَالَ: أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَقَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ يُجْزِي ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَاحْجُجْ عَنْهُ) رواه أحمد والنسائي بمعناه.

It is narrated from Abdullah Ibn az-Zubair that he said, "A man from Khath'am came to Prophet Mohammad (saw) and said, ‘My father converted to Islam when he was old and cannot ride on an itinerant, and Hajj is required from him, may I perform Hajj on his behalf?' He said, ‘Are you his oldest son?' He said, ‘Yes.' He said, ‘Don't you think that if your father owed a debt and you paid it off, that would be good enough?' He said, ‘Yes.' He said, ‘Then perform Hajj on behalf of your father.'" [Narrated by Ahmad and an-Nasa'i in its meaning.]

Is it understood from the hadeeth that the Hajj of a son on behalf of his father is obligatory or is it just for the sake of the son honoring his father?

As the man has showed to the blessed Prophet (saw) that his father is old and cannot ride on an itinerant...
And it is known that Hajj is obligatory for those who are able financially and physically.
And what we know that it is not obligatory for the unable.

Second Question

Isn't (يُحْيِ الْعِظَامَ) (give life to bones) in the verse (قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِ الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ) He (swt) says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" Is a metaphor; where a part is mentioned but the whole is meant?

I asked him under this subject

May Allah reward you goodness, and may He preserve you support and treasure for the great Muslim Ummah. May He (swt) grant you victory.
A. Hamza

Answer

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

The answer to your first question, O dear brother,

As to the hadeeth you have mentioned:

عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَالَ: جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ خَثْعَمَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ: إِنَّ أَبِي شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ، لَا يَسْتَطِيعُ الرُّكُوبَ، وَأَدْرَكَتْهُ فَرِيضَةُ اللَّهِ فِي الْحَجِّ، فَهَلْ يُجْزِئُ أَنْ أَحُجَّ عَنْهُ؟ قَالَ: «آنْتَ أَكْبَرُ وَلَدِهِ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: «أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ كَانَ عَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ أَكُنْتَ تَقْضِيهِ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَحُجَّ عَنْهُ»

It is narrated from Yusuf Ibn as-Zubair, from from Abdullah Ibn az-Zubair that he said, "A man from Khath'am came to Prophet Mohammad (saw) and said, ‘My father converted to Islam when he was old and cannot ride on an itinerant, and Hajj is required from him, may I perform Hajj on his behalf?' He said, ‘Are you his oldest son?' He said, ‘Yes.' He said, ‘Don't you think that if your father owed a debt and you paid it off, that would be good enough?' He said, ‘Yes.' He said, ‘Then perform Hajj on behalf of your father.'"

An-Nasa'i extracted it, and Yusuf Ibn az-Zubair is the only one who has mentioned the word "أنت أكبر ولده" "Are you his oldest son?". For that, scholars have said something about this issue, and the rest of the hadeeth is sound 'Sahih' for most of the scholars. Some have corrected it even with this spelling "أكبر ولده" "his oldest son". Though this hadeeth has been narrated without mentioning "أكبر ولده" "his oldest son" from Ibn Abbas:

أخرج ابن حبان في صحيحه عن سُلَيْمَانُ بن يسار قال: حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلًا سَأَلَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ أَبِي دَخَلٍ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَهُوَ شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ، فَإِنْ أَنَا شدته عَلَى رَاحِلَتِي، خَشِيتُ أَنْ أَقْتُلَهُ، وَإِنْ لَمْ أَشُدَّهُ، لَمْ يَثْبُتْ عَلَيْهَا، أَفَأَحُجُّ عَنْهُ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «أرأيت لَوَ كَانَ عَلَى أَبِيكَ دَيْنٌ فَقَضَيْتَهُ عَنْهُ أَكَانَ يُجْزِئُ عَنْهُ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَاحْجُجْ عن أبيك»

It is narrated in Sahih of Ibn Hibban that it is narrated from Sulayman Bin Yasar that he said: Abdullah Ibn Abbas told me that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, my father converted to Islam when he was old and cannot sit firmly in the saddle; if I tie him, I fear that he may die, and if I did not, he won't be fastened, Can I perform Hajj on his behalf?" The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Do you think that if your father owed a debt, and you paid it off, that would be good enough?" He said, "Yes." He said: "Then perform Hajj on behalf of your father."

From this, it is apparent that the Messenger (saw) has made the disability of the old man, who cannot settle on an itinerant, a debt on him that is an obligation even if he could not ride due to his old age and weakness. The jurists have talked about the hadeeth, taking into consideration that Allah (swt) has made the obligation of Hajj depending on the ability ﴾ وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى النَّاسِ حِجُّ الْبَيْتِ مَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا ﴿ "And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way." Some of the jurists (fuqaha) have made the hadeeth of the Sheikh al-Kabeer specific to that questioning man and not for anybody else, so that the hadeeth will not conflict with the ability that the ayah has mentioned. As to other than this condition, it is not obligatory for the son to perform Hajj on behalf of his incapable father, except for the sake of honoring the parents, on the grounds that that ruling is specific to that questioning man. This is the same as the ruling specific to Abu Burda regarding the sacrifice of the she-goat.

أخرجه البخاري عن البَرَاءِ بْنِ عَازِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ... فَقَالَ أَبُو بُرْدَةَ بْنُ نِيَارٍ خَالُ البَرَاءِ: قَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، فَإِنَّ عِنْدَنَا عَنَاقًا لَنَا جَذَعَةً هِيَ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ شَاتَيْنِ، أَفَتَجْزِي عَنِّي؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ وَلَنْ تَجْزِيَ عَنْ أَحَدٍ بَعْدَكَ

It is narrated by al-Bukhari that it is narrated from al-Baraa Bin Azeb (ra), he said... So Abu Burda Bin Niyar, the uncle of al-Baraa said, "O Messenger of Allah, I have a young she-goat which is dearer to me than two sheep. Will that be sufficient as a Nusuk on my behalf? "The Prophet (saw) said, "Yes, it will be sufficient for you, but it will not be sufficient for anyone else after you." The young she-goat is not sufficient as an animal sacrifice, but it is specific for Abu Burda.

It is likely that the combination of the hadeeth and the ayah prior to moving along to the specific because the origin is that the rulings are addressed to people, and none of it should be turned to the specific unless a verse is mentioned about it. For example, the case of Abu Burda and the saying of the Messenger (saw) to him, «نَعَمْ وَلَنْ تَجْزِيَ عَنْ أَحَدٍ بَعْدَكَ» "Yes, it will be sufficient for you, but it will not be sufficient for anyone else after you" and if the combination is difficult... Here, there is no specific verse, and the combination is not difficult, so the ayah and hadeeth can be combined saying that Hajj is not obligatory except in the case of financial and physical ability. An exception from that is the case of the son with his father; if the son is able, and the father is not, then it is an obligation on the son to perform the Hajj on behalf of his father because the Messenger (saw) has considered the Hajj on behalf of the father, in this case, as a debt that a son should pay off for his father.

If you are able to perform Hajj on behalf of your father, even if he cannot or died before performing Hajj, then you have to perform Hajj on behalf of your father, as it is similar to a debt on the father, and paying it off is an obligation on the son then the inheritors according to the Islamic rulings in this section.

Whereas if you are unable, neither by yourself nor by paying for somebody else, then Allah will not ask you what you cannot do, and when you are able you do it if Allah wills.

The answer to your second Question

We do not rely on metaphor unless applying the reality is impossible; for example يَجْعَلُونَ أَصَابِعَهُمْ فِي آذَانِهِمْ مِنَ الصَّوَاعِقِ حَذَرَ الْمَوْتِ "They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps in dread of death", "أصابعهم" "their fingers" is a metaphor for the ends of the fingers because the fingers, in reality, (altogether) cannot be put in the ears, but only the ends of the fingers can be put in the ears.
Another example of the like ((وَدَخَلَ مَعَهُ السِّجْنَ فَتَيَانِ قَالَ أَحَدُهُمَا إِنِّي أَرَانِي أَعْصِرُ خَمْرًا)) "And there entered the prison with him two young men. One of them said, "Indeed, I have seen myself [in a dream] squeezing wine." Here wine is a metaphor for grapes because wine cannot be squeezed in reality, but grapes is squeezed to form wine...
Whereas if the reality is not impossible, we don't rely on metaphor, so Allah's (swt) saying: وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلًا وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِ الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ "And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" The reality of giving life to bones is not impossible for Allah (swt); for that, we said "يُحْيِ..." "Give life..." in reality and not metaphorically, and we understood from it that bones of the dead bodies are dead as well.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page

News

The Turkish Government in cooperation with Gendarmerie has launched a project about combating domestic violence against women, which is jointly financed by the European Union and Turkey. A total of 10,000 community police will receive training on gender equality and combating violence against women in families. Human rights organizations' statistics show an increase of violence against women over a period of 8 years of AKP ruling by 1400%. Over the last 5 years, about 6,000 women were murdered. While the number of women murders was 66 in 2002, in the first 9 months of 2013 alone, 842 women were killed. Female gendarmerie Major Songül Yakut stated that 25 thousand women were subject to violence in 2012 and that 76 of them died in Gendarmerie protected areas. The number increased to 28 thousand, with 95 murders in 2013. Turkey's European Union Delegation Vice President Béla Szombati underlined that they were launching this project just one week before the international day of "Eliminating violence against women" that will be on 25th November.

Comment

These numbers leave no doubt that ruling according to the capitalist secular view of life, which includes the liberal principle of personal freedoms, has never brought an improvement to any society in the world and especially not to the lives of Muslim women. Such values simply encourage men to act upon their own whims and desires, eroding the concept of accountability, responsibility, and respect in the manner by which they should treat women. Considering that Liberal Western countries themselves are fighting against increasing violence against women, such projects in Muslim countries including in Turkey are unlikely to stem the rising tide of this problem. Rather in truth, they only have one outcome, namely upholding and enforcing their corrupt values of democracy and personal freedoms upon the Muslim society that fuel such crimes. According to UK statistics almost 30 women a day try to kill themselves to escape physical and mental abuse, and every week three succeed. In the USA, the Pentagon alone has grappled with increasing sexual assaults within the US military, which increased by 46% to 3,553 during the last year alone. Can you then imagine the level of violence against women within their general society?

It is time now for the Muslims in Turkey to accept the failure of this capitalist liberal system, and not to lay their hopes in projects and solutions shaped upon its flawed ideas. It is time now to remember and to find our way back to the tranquil times under the protecting laws of Allah (swt), because real success for the women of this Muslim country and all over the world will never come by adopting any system that is based upon anything other than Islam. Islam alone has secured women's rights through a perfect system, and all these attempts of the defenders of this secular capitalist ideology are doomed to end in vain. The Khilafah "Caliphate" is the only system that can guarantee a life of dignity and safety for both women and men, through its Qur'an and Sunnah based constitution. Having a look to the history of Islam, for example the Judicial Records of the Anatolian Shariah Courts, will sweep away any doubts on the effectiveness of this system.

And Allah (swt) taught us in Surah al-Baqara,

(وَلَا تَلۡبِسُواْ ٱلۡحَقَّ بِٱلۡبَـٰطِلِ وَتَكۡتُمُواْ ٱلۡحَقَّ وَأَنتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُونَ)

"And do not mix the truth with the falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know what it is" [TMQ Al-Baqara: 42]

And He (swt) also says in Surah Tauba,

فَمَنۡ أَسَّسَ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُ ۥ عَلَىٰ تَقۡوَىٰ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرِضۡوَٲنٍ خَيۡرٌ أَم مَّنۡ أَسَّسَ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُ ۥ عَلَىٰ شَفَا جُرُفٍ هَارٍ۬ فَٱنۡہَارَ بِهِۦ فِى نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ‌ۗ

"Which then is best? - He who laid the foundation of his building on piety to Allah and His good Pleasure? Or he who laid the foundation of his building on the edge of a bank ready to crumble to pieces....."[TMQ At-Tauba: 109]

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Umm Khalid
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

Documented revelations have shown that Australian intelligence agencies were spying, through Australian embassies in Indonesia, on Indonesian leaders in 2009. The phones of President Yudhoyono, his wife, and many in his inner circle were tapped. Indonesia has recalled its ambassador to Australia and demanded an apology, dismissing Prime Minister Tony Abbott's response to the revelations as inadequate.

Question

"Things are permitted in origin unless there is an evidence of prohibition". Money is a thing, there is no mention of evidence that prohibits it, and therefore, it remains in its original state of being permitted. For example: someone steals money, the ruling on the action of stealing is prohibition and the sin lies with the one who committed the action and all that follows in terms of the punishment. As for the money in terms of money, it remains as its origin which is permitted and must be returned back to its owner. This is the ruling on anything stolen regardless of the fact that it was transferred (from one place to another) or not, the money generally remains permitted regardless of the action connected to it as long as there is no restriction by evidences. There is no issue for the person if the money is taken from him as a gift or present, or nafaqa (money he is obliged to spend) because the prohibited action is not connected to the one who undertook the action only ...and Allah knows best.

«حُرِّمَتِ الْخَمْرُ بِعَيْنِهَا» "khamr was prohibited for its origin", the ‘ain of khamr (alcohol) is its origin, i.e. it is prohibited because it is khamr, i.e. its prohibition is because of its origin and the rules the rules related to it e.g. its seller, drinker...etc, but how is the prohibition of money, the transferred and that which is not transferred linked with the Khamr and its sale? Are the Khamr and its prohibition a divine reason (‘illa) for the prohibition of the money? If so, then by Qiyas (analogy) it would not be permissible to use the glass after using it for Khamr, or the truck that carried the Khamr because they share the same ‘illa?

Please clarify and shed some light on the issue, Barak Allahu Feek.

Answer

Yes, "Things are permitted in origin unless there is an evidence of prohibition". As for your question on ‘Illa of Khamr (alcohol) and its prohibition and about the truck that transfers it and the glass which was filled with Khamr, the issue is as following:

«مَا أَسْكَرَ كَثِيرُهُ، فَقَلِيلُهُ حَرَامٌ»

The Prophet (saw) said from what Abu Dawoud extracted from Jabir bin Abdullah: "What intoxicates in a large amount, it small amount is prohibited."

What is clear from this hadeeth is the absence of ‘illa (cause), intoxication is not ‘illa, the evidence for this is that if a small amount is consumed it does not lead to intoxication of the drinker but it is still regarded as prohibited and he is deserving of the punishment. The hadeeth prohibits the small amount if the large amount leads to the state of intoxication; drinking a small amount therefore is prohibited.
Also there is no mention of the ‘ila regarding the ten categories:

«لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْخَمْرَ، وَلَعَنَ سَاقِيهَا، وَشَارِبَهَا، وَعَاصِرَهَا، وَمُعْتَصِرَهَا، وَحَامِلَهَا، وَالْمَحْمُولَةَ إِلَيْهِ، وَبَايِعِهَا وَمُبْتَاعَهَا، وَآكِلَ ثَمَنِهَا»

In the Mustadrak, Hakim extracted from the two Sahih from Abdullah Bin Ummar, from his father that the Prophet (saw) said: "Allah has cursed Khamr (alcohol), its server, its drinker, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, the one who conveys it, and the one to whom it is conveyed, its seller, its buyer, the one who enjoys profit from its price."

What is clear from the hadeeth is that there is no mention of ‘illa, therefore Qiyas (analogy) is not applicable between this and other issues.
Based on this, any drink that leads to intoxication is khamr; they are equal in prohibition whether in small or large amounts. The ten categories mentioned in the hadeeth are prohibited without ‘illa. But this ruling applies to the Mukalaf (accountable), so it is implemented on the truck driver but not on the truck used to transfer the alcohol, nor on the glass that was filled with it. The rule related to khamr is not the same as the truck or the glass. Al-Tabarani extracted in Al-Kabeer from Abi Tha'laba Al-Khushani that he said:

قَالَ: أَتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ: ... وَأَنَا فِي أَرْضِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَهُمْ يَأْكُلُونَ فِي آنِيَتِهِمْ الْخِنْزِيرَ وَيَشْرَبُونَ فِيهَا الْخَمْرَ فَآكُلُ فِيهَا وَأَشْرَبُ...؟ ثُمَّ قَالَ صلى الله عليه وسلم: ...وَإِنْ وَجَدْتَ عَنْ آنِيَةِ الْكُفَّارِ غِنًى فَلَا تَأْكُلْ فِيهَا، وَإِنْ لَم تَجِدْ غِنًى فَارْحَضْهَا بِالْمَاءِ رَحْضًا شَدِيدًا ثُمَّ كُلْ فِيهَا

"I came to the Prophet (saw) and said: "O Messenger of Allah... and I am in the land of the people of the book and they eat pork with their utensils and drink khamr, can I drink and eat from them?" The Prophet (saw) said:

«...وَإِنْ وَجَدْتَ عَنْ آنِيَةِ الْكُفَّارِ غِنًى فَلَا تَأْكُلْ فِيهَا، وَإِنْ لَم تَجِدْ غِنًى فَارْحَضْهَا بِالْمَاءِ رَحْضًا شَدِيدًا ثُمَّ كُلْ فِيهَا»

"if you can spare yourself from eating from the utensils of the Kufar then do so, if you cannot, then wash them vigorously with water, then eat from them."

I.e. if you were in need for them and could not find other utensils, then wash them very well.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al- Rashtah

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