Understanding the principles of Tafseer - part 1

This abridged tafsir based on the book ‘tayseer ila usul it-tafsir’ by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta describes the initial phase of Prophet Mohammed (saw) mission to convey the message of Islam to take humanity from darkness to light. The tafsir of the ayat vividly illustrates how Allah (swt) communicated in the Arabic language challenging the belief, customs and values of the Arabs. Their resistance turned to denial then to open hostility yet the Arabs could not refute the truthfulness of Allah (swt) speech delivered in a language in which the Arabs were masters.

Bismillah irrahmaniraheem

الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله ومن ولاه, وبعد:

Allah sent Muhammad with the message of Islam to take the people from the darkness into the light with the permission of their Lord, to the path of al-‘Azeez al-Hameed.

“Alif Lam Ra. [This is] a Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring forth men, by their Lord’s permission from utter darkness into light—to  the way of the Mighty, the Praised One,” [Ibraheem 1]

He made his miracle صلاوات الله و سلامه عليه and the proof of his prophet-hood a blessed book from Allah, the Qur’anal-Kareem, the speech of Allah al-‘Adheem, which

“Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.”[Fusilat 42]

Allah sent it down in the language of the Arabs, from the letters of their speech, addressing them with a clear Arabic tongue, calling them to become believers in it, understand it and adhere to it; but, they found that it did not recognize for them their desires nor did it give their idols any weight, nor did it give any legitimacy to their wickedness and corruption as they used to do. On the contrary, it ridiculed their idols, condemned their cruelty, oppression and tyranny, bringing equality between the slave and the master, the near and the far, the Arab and non-Arab, except for who is most pious, so he is purest,

“O people, truly your lord is one and your father is one. There is not superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, except according to taqwa. Nor for red over black, nor black over red, except according to taqwa.”

All of you are from Adam and Adam is from dust,

“O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the most pious; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.” [al-Hujarat 13]

When they heard what Rasul Allah (saw) came with, they comprehended and knew that it was from Allah, the speech of Allah and not the speech of man. They were the people of the language and its masters, it is their tongue and their instinct, it is their product and their goods, and with it in their markets they would compete and with its blades they would debate.

Except that they stopped at that which they heard, then they thought and evaluated, so how could they be equal to their slaves?!… and how can they live without servants?!… then how can they be masters if they are not tyrants and oppressors demonstrating their power, the fierce who does not fear anyone?!… how and how?!…

At this, they denied it, after they had comprehended it.

“They said, you are only a man like us, and ar-Rahman did not send down anything, you only lie” [Yasin 15], so they turned their backs arrogantly, increasing in their insolence wandering blindly.

They thought that the matter would end at that, as they were greater in number and more vociferous. They will say that what Muhammad brings is only

“The stories of the ancients– he has got them written—so these are read out to him morning and evening” [al-Furqan 5],

“And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: We have heard indeed; if we wanted we could say the like of it; this is nothing but the stories of the ancients” [al-Anfal 31], and that they could recite as he recites, then they turned their backs arrogantly laughing.

They did not expect that the proof would be established against them, and who could defeat them?! Rather, who could even debate with them?! If Muhammad said a word, they would say ten. If he raised his voice a little, they would gather for him loud shouting bellowing voices,

“The likeness of those who are kafir is that of someone who yells out to something which cannot hear – it is nothing but a cry and a call. Deaf – dumb – blind. They do not use their intellect.” [al-Baqarah 171]

They related falsehood to confront the true stories, thinking that with those falsifications the truth would get lost in the crowd.

Yet, the matter came not as they desired, and from where they had not reckoned. It was said to them, if you are truthful in your claims that what Muhammad recites is just a man’s saying; that if you wanted, then you would say like he says; so the arena is in front of you and the battlefield is at your fore. This Qur’an is a witness, not absent. You hear its verses and comprehend its words. Its letters are from the same letters that you utter, so come on, bring the like of it. If you can do that and bring the like of this Qur’an, then the matter is as you said.

“Say: If men and jinn should come together to bring the like of this Qur’an, they could not bring the like of it, even if they were helpers one of another” [al-Isra’ 88]

But, they did not do so. Instead, they turned back on their heels confused. So, from one angle they knew that it was Allah’s words, as was pronounced by the truthful and trustworthy one, as they were the people of the language and its masters, yet from another angle they were not able to admit to that. For their idols, their dreams, their corrupted and corrupting interests will, if they did that, become as dust blown by the wind in a storm. They would be unable to grab anything of what they had gained. That is the great loss. So, they turned round in a circle and immediately began searching maybe they could find what would lengthen by a few days the period until the announcement of their failing in the challenge, thus delaying the establishment of the proof against them. They found, as was evident in their actions, that bringing the like of the whole Qur’an is a difficult thing, so the burden was lightened a little when it was said to them:

“Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.” [Hud 13]

But, they could not do that, so they returned to their original remarks. The comprehensive proof completely conquered them:

“Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.” [Yunis 38]

You, and every helper from the creation that you can muster, from wherever and whatever it is. Yet again, they could not do so. The proof was the final proof and the last word:

“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do not and never shall you do [it], then fear the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; prepared for the unbelievers.” [al-Baqarah 23-24]

You will not only be unable to do it now, but you will never ever be able to do it for all eternity. The Qur’an is the speech of Allah الحقّ. The speech of man does not come close to his kingdom, nor do the words of the Jinn ascend to approach it. It is الحقّ the truth that the falsehood does not come near to, not from the front nor from behind; a revelation sent down from a wise praised one.

That was enough for them to become believers, except that Shaytan got the better of them, desires destroyed them,

“The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem attractive to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal [of life].” [aal-‘Irman14] They gave a lower status to knowledge, were haughty and stubborn, remaining on their kufr (disbelief) while they knew fully well.

This compounded their confusion and brought them bewilderment on top of bewilderment.

How could the masters convince the masses that this Qur’an is not the speech of Allah? How can they turn them away from it, so that they do not follow it?

They gave great importance to the issue and seriously searched for a way out of this predicament. However, their destruction was in their plans, so instead of making clear a way out, their predicament got even worse,

“To Him is due the true prayer; and those whom they pray to besides Allah give them no answer, but [they are] like one who stretches forth his two hands towards water that it may reach his mouth, but it will not reach it; and the prayer of the unbelievers is only in error.”[ar-Ra’d14]

They entered with kufr and exited with it, establishing the proof against themselves, instead of raising for themselves a proof.

They said: “they are nothing but Muhammad’s words”, but how when Muhammad’s words differ from that which he recites? And how when Muhammad is illiterate while his people read and write, yet they are incapable of bringing the like of it? It is therefore not a valid statement that they are Muhammad’s words, so they put this accusation behind them and left it.

They said: “a man who is not from us teaches him” and mentioned a foreign Christian, yet they had it turned on their heads:

“And certainly We know that they say: It is a man that teaches him. The tongue of him whom they incline to is notably foreign, and this is clear Arabic tongue.” [an-Nahl103]

So, they put that behind them and left it.

Then, they said: “It is nothing but narrated magic, charming words”, however they found that the proof was established against them, as it was an evidence of their inability, such that the book in front of them appeared to be magic due to its strength and greatness. Also, the proof was against them, as magic has a reality well known to them due the their extensive experience with it, and they knew the difference between the utterances of the magician and these great words.

They were about to drop this statement, if they hadn’t found that they were able to convince some of the general public with their saying: “don’t you see that the entering of a family member into Islam is what makes the son, if he became Muslim, leave worshipping the idols of his father, therefore Islam divides between them, as if it were magic?”

They found that this was more useful for misguiding than other ways, so they relied upon it:

“Then he said: This is naught but enchantment, narrated [from others]”. [al-mudathir 24]

However, it was as if they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

Whoever listens to Allah’s words recited is absolutely certain that what he hears is not magic, therefore they agreed among themselves to come between the people and them listening to the Qur’an:

“And those who disbelieve say: Do not listen to this Qur’an and make noise therein, perhaps you may overcome.” [Fusilat 26]

They made noise to disturb it until no-one would hear it from Rasul Allah, rather the situation reached the point where they met with the riders, talking to them about the magic of Muhammad (saw) sometimes with temptation and other times with fear, afraid that they might hear it and realise that it is from Allah, as they themselves had become aware. They did this so that neither the Bedouin Arabs, the travellers nor the residents would become believers, such that they delay, if they could, the emergence of Islam and the raising of its banner. They did it to obstruct, without increasing the army of ar-Rahman and the elevation of His word, yet they should have known that there is no way for that to come to them, if they were intelligent.

This is how they proceeded; on the one hand they were pulled by their recognition that this Qur’an is Allah’s speech, such that even their leaders would go secretly to the house of Rasul Allah (saw) to listen at night to what was being recited of the verses of the Qur’an, and الذكر الحكيم (the Wise Reminder). If they saw some of the others while they were returning, they agreed to never return again, so that the general public would not see them. But, they did return, the Qur’an had captured their hearts, so one of them would say: “It is so graceful, and so sweet, its lowest part is abundant and its highest part is fruitful, confirming that it is not the words of man.”

That is from one side; they were pulled by their recognition that this Qur’an is Allah’s speech. On the other hand, they were pulled by their idols, that which their forefathers were on, their interests and their lusts.

Whoever had a pure nature, a clean mind, became aware, repented, believed and became pious/fearful.

Whoever’s eyes were blinded and he settled lower than low, while his corrupt world ascended for him to the highest levels, remained wandering in his insolence prostrating to and clasping his idols. Like this, he became a believer whoever believed and a disbeliever whoever disbelieved… he raced to Iman(what makes a believer a believer) whoever raced, and procrastinated whoever procrastinated until the Islamic state was established in Madinah (المدينة المنورة). Islam was spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula then that light extended to end the oppression of the great states of the time. Persia was shattered, the Romans were cut apart and the Islamic state became great. Justice was spread as a companion of the Jihad, the flag of Islam was raised, the flag of لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله (there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger). The conquests widened and the earth radiated with Islam and the army of Islam.

Based on the book ‘tayseer ila usul it-tafsir’ by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta

Leadership in Democracy Contradicts the Nature of Leadership - Part 1

The following is a translation from Arabic of an article entitled 'Leadership in Democracy Contradicts the Nature of Leadership In Humanity and in Islam':

By Sheikh Yousuf Baadarani

Man was created from clay; he didn't exist before Allah made him of clay and breathed into the clay the spirit of the body. The reality of birth is that it comes from death and not from life. Life in him is imposed and from the start; he wasn't given a choice regarding it. His lifespan is also imposed on him, confined to a limited time that he cannot affect nor can he remain behind when the time comes for it to end in him and to exit from him. He exits death according to a precise order, and forcibly; and in total absence of his will, life is born in him. And according to this same precise order, forcibly, and in total absence of his will, he exits life when it exits him. This person thinks of death from which he came before his life, and of life that fills his body and in which he entered without any will on his part. And he thinks of death in which he enters after life's aim in him and from him has been realized. He may conclude the reason why Allah created him and be guided to Islam, God's religion before life came to him, that it is God's religion for life that occurred to his existence, and that of death in which he will enter. So he declares his obedience to Allah in his life and knows that life's reason is the proof of living in obedience of God or in disobedience of Him. Or this person may choose to be convinced that life is an interval between the death from which he came and the death to which he will return because of a disorder in the system of death from which the dead have escaped and, with that escape, they entered life. So it is a coincidence that took place in existence and not a result of a system that necessitates it, and that life, death or the individual cannot evade. Thus life's reason in him would be his belief that it is a chance for amusement, for fulfilling desires by any means, and for relishing the process of fulfilling desires, those of possessing, prestige and others, in any ways, methods or manners. So this is the denier who detaches himself from the aim of life in him and the reason for which God created him. He is the person who rejects the reason for which God created him, who is unmindful of the reason why life exists in him. He is the one who leads people in aberrance and lets himself be an example to them in God's disobedience and in battling against the purpose for which Allah created this human being. Or he is the person who follows others in the path of aberrance and of preventing the realization of God's purpose in creating man. Whether one is a followed leader or a follower led in aberration, both are alike and each will receive from God a double punishment as He promises in the Holy Qur'an.

Leadership means being in command, and a people's leader is the one who leads them. For among people, there is a leader, and the majority of the rest are led. Leadership in democracy is a task of fancy and ambition; while in Islam, it is an act of obedience to Allah and of help to God's religion; while ambition is energy for obedience, utilized for calling up the resolve to win victory. For the condition of leadership and command in Islam, as is that of ambition, is to be used to achieve a legal purpose or to execute a legal rule. And leadership or command in Islam originally belongs to God and His Messenger; and an individual bears its burdens in what is necessary to establish Allah's rule and to achieve the purpose of His rule. In Islam, the fancy of the leader's self or his ambition are not an aim but a good reason to make him a forerunner in leading people in God's obedience, establishing Islamic legal rule and realizing legal outcomes. In Islam, people obey the leader or the ruler in instituting a legal rule or achieving a legal aim. For in Islam, life's path for every Muslim is to strive to establish a legal rule to achieve a legal aim[1], and leadership in Islam is to rally Muslims efforts to successfully execute a legal rule and to achieve a legal aim. And as leadership demands the love of those led, Almighty God confined the love of being led to the love of Him alone; and He made the condition to accept His love and the expression of His Muslim servant's love of Him is for the Muslim to follow the legal rule and the Messenger (peace be upon him) who brought the legal rule, or the one who acts on the Prophet's behalf in establishing legal rule to achieve a legal aim. Allah (glory be to Him) made the Muslim's love of Him a condition of faith, and made his submission to legal rule alone a condition for the soundness and acceptance of the claim of this love of God. He made disobedience of the legal rule by obeying other than the legal rule, such as by obeying a person, a party, fancy, or an illegal aim that violates the condition of God's love, a declaration of not loving God. The one who renounces his love of Allah by obeying other than His rule and exchanging it for the leadership of a person, a party, or persons that lead them according to other than God's law and legal rule that He had revealed in the Holy Qur'an and in the SunnahQur'an: ﴾"Say: "If you do love God, follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins; for Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful ❁ "Say: "Obey Allah and the Messenger'; but if they turn away, God does not love the disbelievers." ﴿ (Holy Qur'an 3:31-32).

---

[1] 'Establishing Islamic legal rule' comes about by adhering to the Islamic rule regarding the manner of conducting an action. Islamic legal tenets regulate relationships, solve the problems ensuing from them, and indicate the way to carry out life's burdens and tasks and Islamic injunctions. There doesn't exist a relationship between people that doesn't have a rule concerning it, as to its being allowed or forbidden; and there doesn't exist an action the manner of which is not made clear. That's why all the actions of a Muslim in life involve establishing an Islamic legal rule. 'Achieving Islamic legal aim' is realized by adhering to the Islamic legal manner when carrying out a task or performing an obligation. The Islamic legal aim differs from the individual's aim from the task and from the task's aim. It is realized by merely adhering to the Islamic legal rule; because adherence to it involves the individual's life and that of others. For example, adherence to truthfulness is an Islamic legal rule, yet its consequences involve an aim for the truthful person and another for God's tenets regarding the preservation of society from the spread of unlawfulness in it or the spreading of trust, happiness and virtue among people. The consequences linked to the aim of the Islamic legal rule differ from those linked to the individual's aim, even if it is the individual who brings them about by adhering to this rule. In every act carried out by a Muslim individual, there is an Islamic legal aim that gets realized, whether the individual knows it or not.

Q&A: Muslim Uprisings in the Middle East and Africa

The following is the translation of an Arabic Q&A from the website of Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta, global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Question: There are certain issues regarding the events that remain still unclear:

1: We learn that the events in Egypt and Tunisia began at home and we described them as good and blessed. Similarly in Libya and Yemen, they were started by huge crowds. Why did the revivalists then settle for a 'revolution' which is nothing more than mere cosmetic surgery on the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes as if the revolution had been accomplished...while the 'mainstay' of the regime remained intact and even the agents of the regime were not changed?

2: Similarly, the events in Tunisia and Egypt moved fast up to a point, but when it spread to Libya and Yemen, it dragged and drifted along, why is this difference?

3: During the last three days, the media has been reporting that Europe (Britain and France) are considering intervention in Libya and are preparing to enforce a no-fly zone over it and that the US also intends to do so but is wavering! Then on 9th of March, 2011, France announced its recognition for the Libyan Provisional National Council and urged the European Union to recognize it. Then on 11.3.2011, at its special session in Brussels, the EU was on the verge of according its recognition to the Libyan Provisional National Council, in fact it was considered to be mere formality by one member state, and demanded Qadhafi to step down at once... at the same time, the US did not display keenness like Europe even though it was expected that events presented an opportunity for the US to exploit it in its favor and replace Britain’s influence...why is that Europe is more keen to intervene than the US?

4: Then regarding the ‘revolution‘, can they persist in the face of the heavily armed Libyan forces who are openly bent upon a bloody path and have announced that they will turn Libya into burning flames?

Please clarfy these issues, may Allah reward you.

Answer:

1: It is correct that the events started locally not only in Tunisia and Egypt, but also in Libya and Yemen...and there has been a positive impact of these protests because it has shattered the barrier of fear that the people had from their rulers, such was their fear that it even overcame their Islamic sentiments. The people moved out and shouted without any fear of retaliation by their rulers and this will certainly benefit in mobilizing the people...thus from this aspect the events were welcome and blessed.

On the other hand, the events with the people shouting their emotions. Such events can easily be crushed by the international powers and their agent rulers in the country, which is why Europe i.e. Britain and France were able to crush these protests in Tunisia through their trained proxies who joined the protestors and succeeded in keeping the foundations of their regime intact with mere cosmetic changes.

The same was repeated in Egypt except that it was the US that did so there through its agents...

To any sincere and aware person, it was clear that these events stemmed from people’s emotions and that such situations are easily controlled and crushed by international powers. This is why the sincere persons focused on keeping in contact with protestors in order to keep them aware of the happenings and to urge them not to let their spilled blood be humiliated and wasted and more importantly that their demands are in accordance with their deen which they profess...

Despite such sincere, true and intense attempts with the protestors, other forces utilized their proxies and harnessed their resources to the extent that the protestors at the Tahrir Square in Egypt who offered prayers in thousands, cried the greatness of Allah and were overwhelmed by their Islamic sentiments, but yet they neither demanded the rule of Islam nor mentioned Jihad against the Jewish state which has usurped Palestine, and more over did not even call for rescinding the Camp David accord!

This underscores the truth of the statement that two aspects are required in order to achieve the correct change:

* Public Opinion which stems out of their awareness, and not merely public opinion as such.

* Support of the people of power, and not merely any support.

The protestors were aware of these two issues and thus the result was the cosmetic change without any real change in the political structure.

2: The difference between the events in Tunisia and Egypt on one hand where Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were removed from power within days, and the events in Libya and Yemen where the situation has dragged more than it did in Tunisia and Egypt; is that the international powers who have influence in Tunisia and Egypt persisted in authority and kept their influence intact in the region. Europe had its grip on the events in Tunisia which it addressed in stages, whenever the people stood up, the powers changed the face of the rulers and kept the basic structure of the secular capitalist system of governance intact without any changes. Similarly in Egypt, it was the US alone which was in touch with the political forces in the past and the present regime and treated the situation in steps; whenever the protestors roared, they changed one face with another!

Thus the forces who supported Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak in their last days were international players and basically one; Europe in Tunisia and the US in Egypt...these players, through their agents in these countries who had supported the previous regimes for decades, were able to crush the protestors. These powers encouraged the protestors to shout at the top of their voices, call for their demands in forceful voices against the oppression and suppression enforced by the tyrannical rulers in Tunisia and Egypt and yet the same forces cheated the protestors!

In other words, the warring parties in Tunisia and Egypt were:

The protestors who had forgiving sentiments for the oppression...and,

Europe through its agents in Tunisia, and the US through its proxies in Egypt...

This way, the international powers were in a position to keep the foundations of their secular capitalist system intact in the name of liberties and democracy. They achieved this by offering cosmetic changes which certainly will be exposed later, however after its time has lapsed!

As for Libya and Yemen, Europe could not prevent American intervention and the stage was not monopolized by Europe in both these countries to manage the affairs as it wanted. They satisfied or pacified the people with token gestures and retaining their agents intact as they had tried to earlier; Qadhafi in Libya and Ali Saleh in Yemen by offering initiatives to convince the people. This provided them some say in the matter until it became clear to them that they have failed in continued achievement of their interests even by controlling the protestors through slaughter and spilling their blood. Their strength lost its influence in the two countries, which means that they played their roles and it is over for them, this is why an alternative was crafted up from among the political arena which was carved up in Libya and Yemen. But all this was not as easy as in Tunisia for instance because here they have to contend with another global power (i.e. the US) who has seriously moved into Libya and Yemen...thus the stage was not controlled by Europe alone, if it were so it would have settled as easily as in Tunisia. But here the US intervened in the arena in its early days by coming in contact behind the scene... In other words, there were three warring parties in both these countries:

The spontaneous protestors whose emotions settled for forgiving the oppression...

Europe (i.e. Britain & France in Libya, and Britain alone in Yemen) striving to retain its previous influence by merely changing the face...and

The US which is trying to establish effective control in the two countries...

The two international parties have tried to project through their media that they are against the totalitarian and oppressive rulers, as if Europe and the US were hitherto unaware about the oppression by the previous rulers. The fact is that it is these Kafir colonialist nations that have been supporting the oppressive and tyrannical regimes in the Muslim lands as long as they can achieve interests, but once the oppressive rulers have played out their roles, they are discarded and disowned and a search is carried on for a less repulsive face!

In other words, it is the international conflicts presence in Libya and Yemen which continues to drag the matters more than the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

3: As for intervention, it has been clear since the inception of the events on 17th February, 2011 that the US is keen to intervene and enforce a no-fly zone. It mobilized its ships closer to the Libyan coast...and as is known about America, it wanted to exercise complete hegemony all on its own as if it was supporting the 'revolution' and through it wanted to look for an alternative to Qadhafi so that it could replace Britain there.

However, the British also moved in without delay and sent its aircrafts to Cyprus and joined forces with France on the issue of no-fly zone and in fact sent a delegation to the Provisional Libyan National Council in Benghazi...which was sent back by the council.

European intervention is not the same as US intervention, Britain has a crew of its proxies in the political circle which it nurtured during the reign of its influence in Libya. Qadhafi and his men were serving British interests during his term and since he has almost fallen, Britain is trying to firm up its other proxies under the pretext of no-fly zone so that it can carve out an alternate for Qadhafi. Thus its intervention through any ‘legitimate’ and appropriate means is meant to ensure that one of its proxies is able to replace Qadhafi whose face has become repulsive and unacceptable to people and it needs a new face which is not so blackened! Thus Britain’s military intervention will provide a political cover along with its agents. This explains France and Britain’s actions on the issue of no-fly zone as well as the resolutions of the EU special session today, 11th March 2011.

It is known that other European countries like France and Italy have great economic stakes in Libya and it is in their interest to intervene if possible, in order to protect their interests. This strengthens Britain’s position vis-a-vis the US...Hence Britain has started to make its preparations through its agents inside and outside of Libya in order to enable them to come to power in the event of Qadhafi’s downfall. Britain has its agents among the politicians who can change their face to suit people.

As for the US, it has no politician to toe its line other than Qadhafi, which is why it wants to ensure presence of its agents before any military intervention.

However, the US is delaying to intervene until the revolutionists realize that it is America which will save them from Qadhafi’s fire. This is why they are stooping before the US to intervene and specially since America is aware that a no-fly zone alone will not solve the problem.

Thus the US delaying intervention, not that it doesn’t want to intervene, rather the delay is to first of all have a set of its agents in place before it embarks on intervention, which means that it wants to ensure that the results achieved are at least worth the trouble, since any US intervention would mean great troubles.

America is not in a position to undertake a third war while it is already engaged in the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars and the one in Iraq has not ended yet. Further, the US is encumbered by a financial crisis which does not give it any respite despite the various reports and forecast which are regarded as incorrect. Hillary Clinton pointed to this during her address to the US House of Representatives and complained of the shrinking of budgetary allocations for the US State Department to half. She termed the budget as "weak difficult times ahead." At the same time, the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: "the military operations may have indirect consequences which need to be studied with great care." [Washington Post: 02.03.2011]. Thus America's direct entanglement in three wars will further put her under greater troubles and weaken it in addition to its sufferings in different regions as well as internal issues. This is why Robert Gates justified his orders to the two war ships "Caresarge" and "Bonsai" on 1st March, 2011 to move close to the Libyan coast, he said these ships have been ordered closer to the Libyan coast in order to provide humanitarian assistance. So the US sends its naval warships under the pretext of humanitarian help!...Although the truth of the matter is that the ships are sent to monitor the military operations and even work from such proximity if the need arises, as well as weaken Qadhafi’s regime and prepare for any eventuality by striking Libya.

Despite all these, the US is working in contact with the protestors and the revolutionists, and Hillary Clinton has declared so. She also talked about other contacts during her forthcoming visit to Cairo, she is working to support them without direct intervention in order to achieve influence by winning over internal leaders as far as possible, and also to tighten the noose around Qadhafi. Thus if she wins over some leaderships or enlists them and is assured of appropriate penetration into Libya, she will then have something that merits a military intervention and is worth the accompanying troubles.

These are reasons for delaying for announcing its decision of intervention or for announcing its contacts with the revolution, this is only meant to gain time to ensure effective political penetration inside Libya. It appears that the US is inching towards such a scenario...

4: As for the persistence of the "revolution", it is clear that they are steadfast in the face of the criminal Qadhafi. Their steadfastness in confronting Qadhafi’s heavy arms and weapons and their fearlessness is borne out by the fact that they have shattered the fear barrier, taken up arms and a section of the armed forces having joined with them. They have taken control of a number of regions and various tribes have also joined them. They are prepared for the new situation and their sentiments are ardently Islamic...All these factors have enabled them to stand up to Qadhafi’s mercenaries in their great heroic acts...

However, there happens to be a great imbalance in terms of arms and weapons of the protestors and the forces of Qadhafi...who is spitting fire on the protestors along the burnt landscape of Libya.The colonialist forces, i.e. Europe and the US are raising the balance in favor of Qadhafi’s weapons and projecting as if they are helping the protestors. It is feared that the colonialist forces may find a justification under the garb of "humanitarian assistance" and intervene to put an end to the slaughtering and blood spilling being committed by Qadhafi...

The sad part, or rather the humiliating part is that the neighboring Arab rulers have not moved at all and their armed forces are resting in their barracks, they are ordered out of barracks only to kill people and not for coming to the rescue of the victims in Libya, the Arab armed forces remain unmoved, deaf, dumb and even blind, they perceive not...

What is feared that the Kafir colonialists will exploit the bloody slaughter being committed by Qadhafi and thus they will find a pretext for military intervention in Libya. They have no shortage of either an Arab or Libyan party calling them to intervene, in fact the Secretary General of the Arab League has hinted this already.

In addition to this, there is another apprehension, that Britain may enable its proxies who are presently managing the protests to bring them to the fore in case the regime of Qadhafi doesn’t fall. Similarly the US agents may take hold of the situation if they can and find their own proxies and buy new support. The situation until now is neither tilted towards the sincere people nor the Qadhafi regime loyal to the British and nor to any alternate British proxy or even the US agents. Even if the protests are victorious and Qadhafi falls, the situation would still not tilt in favor of any of the parties in the short term. This is because of the intervention of those colonialist countries and their rivalry in remaining behind scenes as well as because of the presence of their proxies among the people who are striving to take control. The people in Libya will not succeed except by clearly and publicly adopting Islam as the system of life in the country and society in all aspects...But so long as things remian under the banner of nation, everyone will move in and work to take control of things and drive people, spilling innocent blood along the path and still be unable to achieve a fair and just authority under which it can live in peace and safety.

This is what we fear for the Muslims in Libya because of the betrayal of the neighboring rulers and wait for the kafir colonialists to enter the Muslim lands as well as the tyranny of the slaughter at the hands of Qadhafi forces...

It becomes the duty of the Ummah to put pressure upon their rulers especially those neighboring Libya in Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia to stand up to the tyrannical rulers and force them to move their armed forces so that Qadhafi gets the taste of his own blood and is made to face his actions: humiliating punishment in this world and the punishment of hell in the hereafter, indeed it is no big task for Allah.

6th Rabee al Thani, 1432 A.H
11th March, 2011 C.E

Arabic Source

The Difference Between Al-Illah and Al-Sabab

The following is a translation from the Usul Al-Fiqh masterpiece of the Arabic book “The Islamic Personality Volume 3” by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings.

Al-Sabab is a sign whose presence necessitates the existence of a Hukm and that which, if absent, necessitates an absence of that Hukm. It is not the motive behind the legislation of the Hukm. Hence, al-Sabab is related to the existence of the Hukm in reality. It is not related to the legislation of the Hukm to deal with reality. The sighting of the month of Ramadhan is the Sabab for the obligation of fasting upon those who sight it: “So every one of you who is present (at his home) during that month should spend it in fasting.” [2-185]

Hence, al-Sabab indicates the presence of the obligation, not the motive nor the reason for the obligation. The presence of the obligation is different to the reason for the obligation. Al-Sabab is contrary to the Illah, which is the matter for whose sake the Hukm has come into being – in other words, it is the motive behind the legislation of the Hukm. Thus, it is related to the legislation of the Hukm and not related to its effective presence. Hence, al-Illah is the reason for the obligatory nature of the Hukm and not the reason for its existence.

Al-Sabab comes before the existence of the Hukm. If it materialises, the execution of the Hukm becomes compulsory. Before the existence of al-Sabab, the Hukm is obligatory on the liable; however, the presence of this obligation depends on the existence or the materialisation of al-Sabab. This is contrary to al-Illah, which accompanies the legislating of the Hukm, for it is the motive behind its legislation. For instance, the sighting of the moon of Ramadhan is al-Sabab for the existence of the obligation of fasting; thus it precedes the fasting. This is contrary to the public waterfalls that generate electricity, which represent al-Illah to make electricity a public property; it accompanies the legislating of the Hukm. The fact that the waterfalls are public property accompanies the Hukm of the electricity generated from them, that being public property, which is the motive behind the Hukm.

Moreover, al-Sabab is specific to the reason for its existence and it does not go beyond it to other matters, thus no analogy can be made. Al-Illah, however, is not specific to the Hukm that has been legislated for its sake; it exceeds it to other matters and analogy can also be made on al-Illah itself. For instance, the time of Salat al-Maghreb is al-Sabab for the existence of Salat al-Maghreb and not the reason for obligating it. Also, it is not valid as al-Sabab for other than Salat al-Maghreb; thus no analogy can be made on it. However, the fact that distraction from Salat acts as al-Illah for the legislating of the Hukm prohibiting trade during the Athan of Salat al-Juma’a, as indicated by Allah’s (swt) saying: “If the call for prayer…”, this is not specific to trading but can also extend to other matters, in which case the Hukm goes beyond it to include this other matter. Hence, it is through al-Illah that analogy is made on the Hukm of trading, making for instance hiring, swimming and writing prohibited during the Athan of Salat al-Juma’a. Hence, al-Illah is the motive behind the legislating of the Hukm, whereas al-Sabab is the motive behind the effective occasioning of the rule, i.e. when to perform it.

Therefore, Allah’s (swt) saying: “Establish prayer according to the movement of the sun” is not an Illah but rather a Sabab, because the movement of the sun is al-Sabab for establishing the Salat and not al-Illah. It was also reported that Aisha (ra) said: “The sun eclipsed during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (saw), so he ordered someone to call for a collective prayer and then he stood and prayed four Raka’at (bowings) in two Raka’at and four Sajdat.” This is not an Illah but rather a Sabab, because the eclipse of the sun is a Sabab for establishing prayer and not an Illah for it. It has been also reported on the authority of Salama Ibnul Akwaa that “We used to pray the Maghrib prayer with the Prophet when the sun disappeared from the horizon”, which is not an Illah but rather a Sabab, because the disappearance of the sun behind the horizon is a Sabab to establish the Maghrib prayer and not an Illah for it. All this and the like is part of the Sabab(s) and not the Illah(s) because the descent of the sun from its highest point in the sky, its eclipse and its disappearance from the horizon are each a Sabab for the effective materialisation of the Hukm and not a reason for its obligation; i.e. a Sabab for its execution by the Mukallaf (liable) and not a reason for its legislation. Hence, it transpires that what has been mentioned about the rituals in terms of being Sabab(s) and not Illah(s) makes the rituals rigidly subject to text (tawqifiyah): they cannot have an Illah and no analogy can be made on them. This is because the Sabab is specific to what it has been designated to be a Sabab for, which is in order to establish the rule and not to legislate it.

Using physical power to change the Munkar (evil) depends on capability

The following is the English translation of a leaflet by Hizb ut-Tahrir published in 1989 followed by an answer to questions that arose from this important leaflet.

Forbidding The Munkar Is An Obligation And Using The Physical Power To Remove It Depends On Capability

Munkar (evil) is everything denounced and prohibited by Shar'a, like neglecting an obligation or committing haram. Forbidding munkar is a divine law (Hukm Shar'ai) prescribed by Allah the Supreme upon all Muslims, whether they are individuals, groups, parties, nation and State. Muslim narrated about Abi Said al-Khudri, he said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'Whoever of you had seen an evil (munkar) thing let him change it by his hand, and if he could not do that let him do that by his tongue, and if he could not do that let him deny it by his heart (i.e. hate it), and this is the weakest (degree of) faith'".

Allah the Supreme made it obligatory upon Muslims to establish from themselves parties and groups in order to enjoin the right conduct and forbid munkar. Allah said, "Let there arise from amongst you a group calling to the Goodness (al-Khayr) and enjoining what is good (al-Ma’ruf) and forbidding what is evil (al-Munkar); and those are the ones who will attain success" [TMQ Ale-Imran: 104].

Allah the Supreme has honoured this nation by making her the best nation that was raised up for mankind as she enjoins the right conduct and forbids munkar, and believes in Allah. He said, “You are the best of the nation raised up for mankind because you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah.” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 110]

Allah the Supreme has differentiated between the believers and the hypocrites on the basis of enjoining the good conduct and forbidding munkar. He said, "The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong and they forbid the right (conduct)". [TMQ At-Tawba: 67]

And He said, “The believers, men and women, are awliya (helpers, protectors, friends) of one another, they enjoin the ma’roof and forbid the munkar and they establish the salah.” [TMQ At-Tawba: 71].

Allah the Supreme has threatened Muslims by punishment if they remained silent about the wrong, and they did not act to change it and remove it. It was narrated about Huthaifa bin Al-Yaman about the Prophet (saw) he said, "(I vow) by the One in Whose hands my soul rests, you have to enjoin right and forbid the wrong, other wise Allah will be about to send upon you a punishment from Him, then you would pray to Him (ask Him) but He would not answer you". It was also narrated about Haitham, he said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) said, 'Any people amongst whom sins are committed, and they could change them but they did not (change), Allah will be about to bring a general punishment upon them'".

According to what Ahmed narrated, the Prophet (saw) said, "Allah will not punish the common people because of the action of particular people, unless (until) they see the wrong among themselves and they are able to change it but they do not. Once they have done that He would punish the particular people and the common people.”

So any Muslim who wittnesses a wrong thing - any wrong thing - in front of him, he has a duty to work for forbidding it and changing it by one of the three ways mentioned in the tradition (hadeeth) by Abi Said Al-Khudri according to his capability, otherwise he would be sinful.

Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong is an obligation upon Muslims under all the circumstances, whether the rules applied upon Muslims are Islam rules or the Kufr rules, and whether the ruler perfected the application of Islam rules or he misapplied them. Enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong was practiced at the time of the Prophet (saw), at the time of the companions (sahaba), at the times of the Followers (Tabieen) and the Followers (Tab'ee at Tabi'een); and this law will remain until the Day of Judgement. The wrong (Munkar) may occur by individuals, or groups or by the State. The one who forbids the wrong and changes it is the state, the individuals and the parties.

Originally, in the Islamic State the ruler is the caretaker of the people's affairs by the rules of the Shar'a, and he is responsible by Shar'a to forbid the wrong things, whether practiced by individuals or groups. The Prophet (saw) says, "Imam is a shepherd (caretaker) and he is responsible about his citizens". Allah delegated him to force people whether individuals or groups, to perform all the obligations (duties prescribed upon them by Allah. If the matter requires using the force to compel them to perform these duties, he is obliged to use it. Allah, also, made it obligatory upon him to prevent people from committing the prohibited things. And if the matter requires using the force to prevent them from committing the prohibited things, it is obligatory upon him to use it. So the state is the origin for changing the wrong and removing it by hand, i.e. by force, because it is responsible by Shar'a about application of Islam and compelling them to obey its rules.

In regard with changing the wrong by individuals, the individual who sees a wrong thing in front of him, such as to see a person who drinks alcohol, or steals or he is about to kill somebody or to commit adultery with a woman or any other wrong thing, the it is obligatory upon him to forbid this wrong, and to work for changing it and removing it; and he would be sinful if he failed to do that. If he was able even if most likely - to remove this wrong by his hand then he is obliged to start changing it and removing it. Thus he prevents the person from drinking alcohol, or from stealing, or from killing or from adultery. He has to prevent that and remove it by hand, because he is able to change it by hand, in fulfillment to the saying of the Prophet (saw), "Whoever of you sees a wrong thing, let him change it by hand (i.e. by force)".

Using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong depends on the actual capability - even if it is most likely - to change this wrong and to remove it by hand. If there was no ability to remove it, then the hand has not to be used, because using it as such would not achieve the aim it is used for, which is changing the wrong and removing it. So the place of using the hand, as mentioned in the hadeeth (tradition) depends on the ability to change the wrong actually. The evidence of this is that the hadeeth (tradition) make a transfer to forbidding the wrong by tongue (words) in case of the inability, i.e. incase of the inability to forbid the wrong and remove it by hand; where it said, "If he could not then let him forbid it by his tongue". Forbidding the wrong by tongue is not considered a changing of the wrong, it is rather a charging against the one who commits the wrong, i.e. denouncing his committing of the wrong. If he could not denounce by his tongue, then he has to hate that wrong by his heart and not to accept it.

This is in regard with the wrong committed by individuals or groups. But the wrong committed by the ruler, such as he treats unjustly or he takes the properties of the people by wrong, or he prevents the rights or he neglects some of the citizens affairs, or he slacks in performing some of her duties or he disagrees with any of the rules of Islam or any other wrong, then it is obligatory upon all Muslims to take him to task, and deny that of him, and to work to change that, as a nation, an army, parties, and individuals; and they will be sinful by remaining silent about that and by leaving the forbidding of wrong and changing it.

Forbidding the wrong and changing on him when he commits some wrong will be by taking him to task by tongue, according to what Muslim narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet (saw) said, "There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some other. Whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe, but what about those who accepted (their wrong) and followed?" And it was also narrated by Abdullah bin Mas'oud, he said, "The Prophet (saw) said, 'Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong, and to hold against the hand of the tyrant, and to force him on the truth truly and to limit him to the truth really, otherwise Allah will hit the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed them". Similarly the Prophet (saw) made the saying of truth at the unjust ruler as the best jihad, when he replied the man who asked him, "Which is the best jihad?" He said "The word of truth at the unjust ruler".

Other hadeeths prohibited rebellion by arms against him except in one case which was excluded of the prohibition of armed rebellion against him, that is the case when he shows kufr, upon which there is a proof from Allah that it is undoubtedly a clear open kufr; i.e. if he showed ruling by clear kufr rules, and gave up ruling be the revelation of Allah. Auf bin Malik al Ashj'ayi reported, "I heard the Prophet (saw) say, 'The best of you Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you and who pray (call Allah to bless you) and you pray for them (call Allah to bless them), and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you.'" He said, "We said, 'O Prophet of Allah, should we not then declare war on them.' He said, 'No, as long as they establish the prayer among you'". What is meant by establishing the prayer is ruling by Islam, i.e. applying the rules of Shar'a, on the basis of naming the whole with the name of (its) part.

It was narrated about Umm Salama that the Prophet (saw) said, "There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some others; whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of responsibility), and who denied he will be safe but what about those who accepted (i.e. their wrong) and followed." They said, "Should we not then fight against them?" He said, "No, as long as they prayed". That is, as long as they applied the shar'a rules including the prayer, on the basis of applying the name of the part on the whole. It was also narrated about Ubada bin As-Samit, he said, "We gave the pledge (Bay'a) to the Prophet (saw) on hearing and obedience at the difficult and easy situation, on what we like and dislike and on preference over ouselves; and that we have not to dispute the people with their authority, unless you see an open kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah the Supreme; and that we have to say the truth for the sake of Allah".

The meaning of these three hadeeths, forbids the rebellion with arms against the ruler, except in the case when he does not govern with the revelation of Allah, i.e. in case he ruled with the laws of open kufr, upon which there is undoubted clear proof from Allah that it is kufr.

Thereupon, any Muslim ruler who does not govern with the revelation of Allah and governed, instead, with the clear kufr rules, it becomes obligatory upon all Muslims to rebel against him with arms, to remove him from the authority, and to remove the kufr ruling with which he governs and to put in application and execution the rules revealed from Allah.

The obligation of rebellion against the ruler with arms depends on the ability to remove him, and removing the clear kufr rules by the physical power - even if it was (only) most likely - because using the hand, i.e. the physical power to change the wrong matters - depends on the capability to remove the wrong actually by that force. So the place of action of the hadeeth which makes it obligatory to use the hand for changing the wrong, and the place of action of the two hadeeths which makes it obligatory to rebel with arms against the ruler who governs with the kufr laws are dependent on the capability of the physical power to change the wrong and the clear kufr and to remove it actually, even if it was most likely. But if the physical power was not capable actually, or most likely, to change the wrong and the kufr laws and to remove them actually, then it has not to be used, because its use then does not fulfill the aim for which the shar'a obliged using it, which is changing the wrong, and the kufr laws and removing them actually. At such situation, forbidding the wrong would be by tongue, and at the same time, effort has to be made to increase the power (force) so as to become capable - even if most likely - to change the wrong and the kufr laws actually, and at such point it has to be used. The whole nation (Ummah), if it unified its will, and the army with the physical (material) power which it possesses, and the large tribes which have the influence and the force (power), and the political parties which have great effective power in the army or in the large tribes or in the nation (Ummah), each one of these, once it possessed the capability to remove the ruler who governs with the clear kufr laws, and he does not govern with the rules of Islam, it becomes obligatory upon it by Shar'a to rebel against that ruler, so as to remove him, and to remove the kufr laws, and to restore the rule with the revelations of Allah.

This is one of ten fundamental laws of Islam, which we found a duty upon us to communicate to the people, so that they become aware of their matter according to its guidance. Surely Allah will fulfill His matter, but most of the people know not.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

28 Dul Qi'da 1409

1 July 1989

Q&A: Regarding The Leaflet Of "Denying The Munkar Is Fard And Using The Physical Power To Remove It Depends On The Ability".

Dear Brothers,

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

The leaflet of "Denying the munkar is fard ,and using the power to remove it depends on the ability" has raised many questions and enquiries, even criticism some of which amounted to describe the party of deviation , and some other criticism considered the contents of the leaflet as a radical change in the course and the method of action and adopted a new method, beside other enquiries and criticism. These questions, enquiries and criticism did not come from one person or from one place, rather they came from many people and from many places.

I honestly tell you dear brothers that these questions, enquiries and criticism were alleviation and peacefulness that brought delight to the soul, pleasure and tranquility to the heart, because they proved the commitment to the unity of thought, and unity of structure; and they proved that the shabaab enjoy a high level of honesty, sincerity and great endeavor to protect the party and to necessarily abide, as shabaab and a leadership, by the thought which we believed in, adopted and structured ourselves on its basis, and which we deduced by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and from those sources indicated by these two; and that any change or alteration has to depend on the divine evidences, otherwise it has to be rejected. All this is of the favour of Allah upon us and upon the people; and which preserves the unity of thought and the unity of structure (entity) and protects us from the error of deviation.

Now let us, dear brothers, return back to the subject of the leaflet, the motivation to issuing it and the purpose of it, and to explain that it does not contradict that we adopted, and that it was not meant to make any change or alteration by that leaflet.

The motive to issue that leaflet was a question that came from some of the shabaab who carried out discussions with some sincere Islamic groups, where the asked an explanation about the hokm of using the physical power to remove the munkar. An answer (a reply) was sent to them, in which a distinction has been made between the work to resume the Islamic way of life and establish the Khilafah, the group must abide by the Seerah of the Prophet (saw) in his course of action in Makkah till he established the state in Al-Medina.,i.e. to abide by the three stages which the Prophet (saw) followed. Then it was explained to them the subject of enjoining the good and denying the bad (munkar). It was later on decided to send the subject of the hokm of denying the munkar to the shabaab and to the people.

The purpose of answering this question from the shabaab and then passing this answer to the rest of the shabaab and to the people, is to explain that what the Islamic groups do of using the physical power the way they practice, and what they adopt, is an action contradictory to the subject of the hadiths related to the duty of denying the munkar by hand (by power), and to the hadiths which make it obligatory (upon muslims) to rebel against the ruler when the open kufr, that we have a proof from Allah on it, appears; and to let the shabaab continue discussing this matter with the Islamic groups so they may convince them and gain them (to the party); moreover to motivate the ummah to practice its duty of removing the rules of kufar and restoring the rule by the revelation of Allah. The purpose had not been other than these matters by any case.

Therefore it was not the aim to give up the method which the party adopted, and to adopt a new course of action (method), a matter which never, even slightly crossed the mind.

In regard with the agreement (non contradiction) of the contents of the leaflet with our adoption is explained as follows:

1.When the leaflet dealt with the munkar practised by individuals, it mentioned that the one who removes it by hand(power) is the state and the individuals; and it did not mention the groups, understanding that removing by hand the munkar practiced by the individuals is not of the function of the groups.

When it also mentioned the removing of individuals to the munkar by hand, it stated specifically certain munkars, which are not allowed according to the laws of the state. Thus stealing, making adultery and murder are not allowed in the Muslim lands, therefore it is a duty upon every Muslim person who sees a person trying to steal from a place at night, or he sees a man drawing a women for making adultery with her or drawing a person to kill him, he is by shar'a, if he is able to prevent this munker by his hand (power), on duty to stop it. If he did not stop it, he will be sinful in view of Allah, because he did not perform a duty decreed to him by Allah.

But in regard with the munkars which the laws of the state allow for women in the public life, such munkars are of the ruler's munkars though they originated from individuals, because they are practiced according to the law and system which the ruler applies. Such munkars are removed by removing the system which allows them, not by destroying the bank or ruining the disco, nor by preventing the woman who does not wear the legal (shar'ai) dress from going out in the public life, by the individuals.

It happened that an answer for a question (without a date) has been issued at the time of the late (Taqiuddin an-Nabahani), in which he explains that enjoining the good and denying the evil is an individual duty on every Muslim and not a collective duty; and this is the text of the answer:

Enjoining the good and denying the evil is an individual duty on every Muslim and not a collective duty, because it means the good as it is (good) and the evil as it is (evil), not a particular good nor a particular evil. If the reality of this point is understood, then there would be no sufficiency in performing that, as it occurs in every place and it is repeated in every time; and because the ahadiths came to explain the sin on the side of the individual who ignores htat. The Prophet (saw) said, "Whoever of you had seen an evil he has to change it (prevent it) by his hand, if he could not (do so) he has to prevent that by his tongue(speaking), and if he could not (do so) then he has to change it (i.e. deny it) by his heart, and this is the weakest iman". So look in his saying "Whoever of you had seen" so he makes it obligatory on the one who sees, and he (saw) says "of you" and he did not say "if you (as a community) see". And the one who orders about good and forbids and evil, if he ordered and forbade a person but the person did not abstain (form the evil), then it is haram on him to eat with him, drink with him, and sit with him as long as he did not abstain from the evil. This matter is different than the case of the worker (da'i) to resuming the Islamic way of life, so if he asked a Muslim to work for resuming the Islamic way of life but he did not accept to it in its capacity as a collective duty, the da'i is allowed to eat with him, drink with him and sit with him. But within the work for resuming the Islamic way of life are certain actions which are considered of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and so they have their rule (hokm). so holding strongly against the hand (power) of the tyrant (zalim) until he gives up his zulm is an individual duty; but working to resume the Islamic way of life as it is, is a collective duty, though some of its actions are individual duties; and delivering the call (da'wa) is a collective duty.

2. When the leaflet talked about the evil which occurs from the ruler, the text which came in the three paragraphs, which started to say "and all this is of the evil which occurs from individuals or groups; but the evil which occurs from the ruler . . ." upto the beginning of the fourth paragraph which starts by saying, "and the duty (obligation) of rebellion against him depends on the ability" this text agrees with the text that came in the dossier under the subject of "Obedience is obligatory upon muslims to the ruler even if he committed zulm (unjust treatment), pages 65-70. As an example of the agreement is the text which came in page 68 line 22 that states "the ahadeeth indicate by their meaning the command of declaring the war against him and fighting against him and disputing his authority if this case (open kufr) occurred. The indication by meaning is equally legitimately binding as the indication by text, so these ahadeeth are an evidence that the law-giver demanded (from muslim) to declare war against the rulers, to fight them and dispute their authority if open kufr appeared".

In regard with the last paragraph in the leaflet, which made the confusion, it starts by saying, "And the Ummah in its totality, if it unified its will . . .etc", if its text was examined then there would be no confusion. When the groups were mentioned, the text limited their undertaking if they got the capability in three cases. The first: if they had an effective great power in the army. The second: if they had and effective great power in the large tribes. The third: if they had an effective great power in the Ummah. These three cases will not be available for any party except through the political strife which will not be achieved unless we go though the three stages including seeking the nusrah (support), because making the effective great power in the army, and the large tribes would not result except through the nusrah, and making that in the Ummah would not result except through the long political strife.

But in regard with the Ummah and the large tribes, their motion depends on having the public awareness and the public opinion that they must move to demolish the laws of kufr and to restore the rule with the revelation of Allah. This matter would not result to the army and the tribes except by the leadership of a political party that practices political struggle, and the political actions.

By this explanation it is evident that there is no any contradiction between the contents of the leaflet and the adopted (thought). However the practical situation in regard with the party since 1965 until now, is that it gathers the material power though the way of the nussrah people to change the rules of Kufr and to restore the rule with the revelation of Allah, from within the system not from the outside, despite that it considers the home (dar) in all muslim lands as home of kufr not a home (dar) of Islam. It appears as if this practical situation and what the party practiced through many trials, all was absent from the mind when the questions, enquiries and criticism were made.

In regard with the obligation of preparing the material power which is capable to remove the Kufr law and restore the rule with the revelation of Allah, it is in our regard through the way of nussrah actions as we adopted, following the method of Rasool Allah (saw) in his course, and not through arming and military training of the party and its shebaab.

This is what we wanted to explain to you dear brothers in this letter, in reply to your questions, enquiries and criticism. And it appears from it that there is no any contradiction with what we adopted, and no giving up of the adopted method, and then, there is no new adoption of a new method.

We pray to Allah to provide us with help from Him, and to guide us all to the best of our matter (affairs) and to protect us of the error and deviation, and to support us with His deen and delivering His call till the day we meet Him, and not to waste any of our actions, nor disappoint any of our requests and hopes, and to make our work sincere to Him, and to speed to us the relief, and honour us in the near future with a strong mighty victory from Him, by which He enables us to establish the Islamic Khilafah and to raise the Islamic banner and to restore the ruling with His revelation. The last of our prayers.

25 Muharram 1410 26 August 1989

The Difference Between al-Illah and al-Manat

The following is a translation from the Usul Al-Fiqh masterpiece of the Arabic book “The Islamic Personality Volume 3” by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings.

Al-Illah is the matter for which the rule comes into being. In other words, it is the motive behind the rule, i.e. it is the matter that indicates the intention of the Legislator for legislating the rule. It is imperative to have Shari’ah evidence that indicates it in order to perceive that it is the purpose of the Legislator behind the legislating the rule.

As for al-Manat, it is what the Legislator has related the rule to, and linked it to the rule. In other words, it is the matter which the rule applies to and conforms with, however it is neither its evidence nor its illah. Al-Manat in Arabic is the noun that means the place of al-Inata, which means ‘the suspending and the attaching’. Since there is no Shari’ah meaning for the term al-Manat, this linguistic meaning is the one intended from it, in respect of the rule; thus the word must be explained by its linguistic meaning and must be the intended gist. Therefore, al-Manat means the matter to which the rule is attached. The Manat of the rule is what the matter has been attached to, which the rule has been brought for it; thus the rule is linked and attached to it. This is the interpretation of al-Manat and there exists no other meaning for it whatsoever. Consequently, establishing al-Manat means exploring the reality of the matter for which the rule has come for, in order to establish its essence. In other words, once the evidence of the rule is recognised and once its illah is also recognised, does it however conform to this matter in question? Hence, establishing or achieving al-Manat is exploring whether the Hukm, whose evidence and whose illah have been recognised, conforms to a particular matter or not. Therefore, the Manat of the rule is the non-textual aspect in the Shari’ah rule. Al-Manat is other than the textual(s); it means the reality upon which the Shari’ah rule is implemented.

If one states: “intoxicants are Haram”, then the Shari’ah rule is the prohibition of intoxicants; thus establishing that a specific drink is an intoxicant or not, so that one may judge it to be Haram or not is referred to as establishing al-Manat. Hence, it is imperative to investigate whether the drink is an intoxicant or not before judging it to be Haram; this investigation of the reality (of the drink) is known as establishing al-Manat. If one also states: “The water with which wudu’ can be performed must be the absolute (pure) water”, then the Shari’ah rule stipulates that pure water is the only liquid with which wudu’ would be permitted. Hence, establishing the fact whether the water is pure or not, in order to judge if it is allowed to perform wudu’ with or not, is known as establishing the Manat. Hence, it is imperative to explore whether the water is pure or not before saying whether it is permitted to perform wudu’ with it or not. Looking into the reality of the water is establishing the Manat. If one also states: “the Muhdith must perform wudu’ for Salat, the Shari’ah rule is that the Muhdith must perform wudu’ before praying; so ascertaining whether the person is Muhdith or not is known as establishing the Manat, etc.

 

Hence, establishing the Manat in these examples is ascertaining whether the drink is intoxicant or not, whether the water is pure or not and whether the person is Muhdith or not; so the Manat in the examples is the drink, the water and the person. Establishing the Manat, is exploring the reality of these things and determining whether the relevant Shari’ah rule conforms to them or not. Therefore, establishing the Manat is looking into the cognisance of the Shari’ah rule’s presence in the specific realities, once it has been recognised from the Shari’ah evidence or from the Shari’ah reason i.e. al-Illah. Hence, the direction of the Qiblah constitutes the Manat related to the obligation of facing it and the obligation of facing it is the Shari’ah rule; it is known beforehand and it is indicated by Allah’s saying: “So turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque and wherever you are, turn your face towards it.” The fact that this direction is that of the Qiblah is the Manat and determining this in case of doubt is establishing the Manat. Hence, establishing the Manat is pinpointing the matter that is the subject of the Shari’ah rule.

Hence, the Manat is other than the Illah and establishing the Manat is also other than the Illah, because establishing the Manat is looking into the essence of the matter upon which one wants to implement the Shari’ah rule, such as looking into the liquid to determine whether it is intoxicant or not, looking into the water to determine whether it is pure or not, ascertaining whether the person is Muhdith or not and identifying the direction of the Qiblah, etc.

As for establishing the Illah, it is looking into the motive behind the rule, such as looking into the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to establish whether it denotes Illah or not: when he was asked the purchase of dates with Rutab (ripe dates), he (saw) said: “Would the Rutab become lighter if it dried?” They said: “Yes.” So he (saw) prohibited such sale. It is also like looking into the saying of Allah (swt): “In order that it may not merely make a circuit between the wealthy among you.” [59-7], to establish whether it denotes Illiyah (causality) or not; it is also like pondering over the saying of Allah (swt): “When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah” [62-9], coupled with His saying:“And when the Prayer is finished, then may you disperse through the land” [62-10], to determine whether a Illah can be deduced or not; it is also like contemplating the saying of Allah (swt): “for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth)”, to determine whether it indicates a Illah or not; and so on.

Hence, establishing the Manat is related to the cognisance of what the relevant matter cannot be identified except through it; thus it is part of other than the texts, such as sciences, arts and knowledge that define that matter; this is why it is not necessary for the person who establishes the Manat to be a Mujtahid; it would be sufficient for him to be well versed in the relevant matter. As for the ascertaining of al-Illah, it is related to the perceiving of the text that denotes al-Illah, thus it is related to the texts and to the knowledge of the Qur’an and the Sunnah; hence, it is imperative for the one who identifies al-Illah to be a Mujtahid. This is the difference between al-Illah and al-Manat and consequently the difference between identifying al-Illah and establishing al-Manat.

When the Ijtihad is related to establishing the Manat, it would not be necessary to have a Mujtahid that fulfils the Shari’ah conditions of Ijtihad, in order to obtain from him the establishing the Manat, i.e. in order for him to establish the Manat. In other words, he does not need to be well versed with the Shari’ah evidences, nor with the Arabic language, because the aim of this specific type of Ijtihad is to cognise the essence of the topic as it is, i.e. the matter upon which the Shari’ah rule is to be implemented; thus he needs to have the cognisance which the topic can only be identified through it when knowledge about the topic is sought. Hence, it is imperative for the person to be well versed with these facts, which are related to the topic, so that the Shari’ah rule could be implemented upon it, according to the appropriate requisite, irrespective of whether the person is the Mujtahid himself or any another person, the Mujtahid has consulted to cognise the topic or a book that explains the topic.

Hence, establishing al-Manat does not stipulate the same requirements of Ijtihad, such as knowledge of Shari’ah matters and the Arabic language; it would be sufficient to be well versed with the topic upon which one wants to implement the Shari’ah rule, even if he lacked knowledge in other issues. This would be like the Muhaddith who knows about the ascriptions and their paths, as well as the sound and weak, and what can be used as evidence and what cannot. Hence, his knowledge would be in the science of Hadith, regardless of whether he is well versed in Shari’ah matters, or fluent in Arabic. It would also be like; the surgeon who knows about illnesses and diseases, the manufacturer who is an expert in detecting defects in manufactured commodities, the market expert who is well versed with the value and quality of goods, the surveyor who is well acquainted with the value of estates, the linguist who knows the expressions and their denotations, the inventor, the nuclear scientist, or the space scientist; all these and other experts, through whom al- Manat of the Shari’ah rule is established, need not be Mujtahid(s) or even Muslims, because the aim from establishing al-Manat is to pinpoint the reality of the matter, and this has nothing to do with Ijtihad, knowledge of the Shari’ah, or the Arabic language; the aim is rather confined to one specific issue, namely cognising the essence of the matter.

Establishing al-Manat of the rule, i.e. the matter upon which one wants to implement the rule, must precede the identifying of the rule; and it is impossible to ascertain the rule before establishing al-Manat, because every Shari’ah evidence is built upon two premises: one is related to establishing al-Manat and the other is related to the Shari’ah rule itself. The first one is purely rational, i.e. it is established through thought and contemplation, this is other than the transmitted texts. The second however is textual, i.e. it is determined through perceiving the Shari’ah text, whose transmission has been ratified, namely the Book, the Sunnah and Ijma’a al-Sahaba. Therefore, the Mujtahid must first conceptualise the reality of the event, or the situation, or the matter which he aims to inform of its relevant Shari’ah rule; once he has perceived the reality, he moves to either perceiving the transmitted texts, i.e. the Shari’ah texts from which he aims to deduce the rule for that event or situation or matter, or to perceiving the Shari’ah rule he aims to implement upon the event or the situation or the matter. In other words, the Mujtahid must take into consideration the understanding of the reality and then perceive the appropriate action to tackle that reality by referring to the Shari’ah evidence, which involves perceiving the judgement of Allah that He has decreed on that reality, then he implements one upon the other; i.e. he perceives the rule of Allah through the perceiving of the reality.