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.

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:

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