Q&A: Do those who Hold the Opinion of At-Tadarruj (gradualism) have any Evidence

Question:

As-Salaamu Alaikum,

To begin with, may Allah bless you all for your great efforts and we would like for you to answer the following question for us:

Do those who hold the opinion of At-Tadarruj (gradualism) have any evidence or any semblance of an evidence (Shubhat Ad-Daleel). That is in the case where many of those who hold the view of gradualism say: This issue is one of difference of opinion and so each side should not seek fault in the other, so we will not denounce your view and we will not denounce yours. They make their deduction based on some evidences which include: The statement of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) about Al-Khamr, the statement of ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz to his son, the suspected suspension of the Hadd (prescribed set punishment) for theft in the year of the famine at the time of ‘Umar (ra), the story of ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz with his son, likewise the story of Abdul Malik Bin ‘Umar Bin Abdul Aziz also with his son… That is because it was related that his son Abdul Malik said: O father, why do you not implement (certain) matters? For verily by Allah, I do not care, in respect to the Haqq (the truth), if me and you were to have been boiled in pots! And so ‘Umar said to him: “Don’t be hasty my son, for verily Allah censured Al-Khamr in the Qur’aan two times and made it Haraam on the third time (of mention) and I fear that if I was to burden the Ummah with the Haqq (all of it) in one go that they would repel it and that there would be Fitnah” (‘Al-Aqd Al-Fareed’ 30/1, Al-Muwafaqat 94/2). And there is another Daleel from the Sunnah: It was related from Wahb who said: I asked Jaabir Bin Abdullah about the matter of Thaqeef when they gave the Bai’ah (pledge). He said: They made it a condition upon the Prophet ﷺ that there would be no Sadaqah (i.e. Zakaah) upon them and no Jihaad and that he (Jaabir) heard the Prophet ﷺ saying after that: “They will give Sadaqah and they will perform Jihaad when they embrace Islam” (Hadeeth Saheeh).

Summation of the question: Is the issue of At-Tadarruj a Qat’iy (definite) issue “i.e. it is definite in its Hurmah (prohibition)” or is an Ijtihaadi issue that can be differed in regards to it?

May Allah bless you all and I am sorry for the length.

From Hisham Basbous

---

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuhu,

We have previously answered the issue of At-Tadarruj (gradualism) in the application of Islam with a long and ample answer on 11/02/2006 but it may be that you not have come across it because the answer was provided before the launching of the Facebook page… In any case, your question has included some new issues which our previous answer did not cover and so we will attempt to give a full and exhaustive answer and Allah is Glorified and Exalted Be He, the Protector the Guardian.

Firstly: The discussion of gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam of Islam is a very serious (dangerous) matter. That is because the meaning that is spread by the callers to gradualism is that the application of the rulings of Islam does not happen in one go and consequently it is necessary to apply the rulings bit by bit. In other words, it means the application of the rulings of Kufr (disbelief) in some issues and the application of Islam in some issues…! That is whilst the great sin and corruption of such a matter is clearly evident…

Secondly: It is apparent in respect to the evidences used by the proponents of gradualism that most of them have been brought and crammed in upon the subject of At-Tadarruj. That is because they did not deduce that gradualism is permissible from the Islamic evidences after studying them, rather it is clear from their usage of the evidences that they had decided that gradualism is necessary and then went about seeking evidences for its permissibility. And so they gathered the evidences without ascertaining their applicability or conformity to the reality of the issue that was being deduced… This is in contravention and violation to the correct and valid manner of Al-Istinbaat (deduction) which is as follows:

1 – When deducing a Hukm Shar’i for an issue, its reality is studied thoroughly, then all of the evidences related to this reality are brought together; the evidences are studied in an Usooli manner in order to deduce the Hukm Ash-Shar’i.

2 – Effort is expended first to bring together the evidences (i.e. to not neglect any of them) because making to evidences work together (Al-Jam’u) is better and more appropriate (Awlaa) than neglecting one of them.

3 – If bringing them all together is not possible then outweighing (At-Tarjeeh) is sought in accordance to the following Usool: So the Muhkaam overrides the Mutashaabih, the Qat’i overrides the Zhanni. If the Zhanni and Zhanni are brought together then the strength of the Daleel is studied in respect to its Sanad (chain of transmission) and in respect to the ‘Umoom (generality)… And so the stronger Sanad outweighs the one of lesser strength, the Khaass (specific) outweighs the ‘Aamm (general), the Muqayyad (restricted) outweighs the Mutlaq (unrestricted) and the Mantooq (explicit) outweighs the Mafhoom (implicit)… and so on, as has been explained and detailed in its section (of study).

Thirdly: By studying the Shar’iah evidences in becomes clearly evident that gradualism (At-Tadarruj) in respect to the application of Islam, which occurs through the application of a part whilst leaving a part, is not permitted… The evidences for that are Qat’iyah Ath-Thuboot (definite in transmission) and Qat’iyah Ad-Dalaalah (definite in meaning/import). We will now mention some of them:

1 – Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ

“And so rule between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires and beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you”

(Al-Maa’idah: 49)

This is a decisive command from Allah to His Messenger and to the rulers of the Muslims after him, with the obligation to rule by all that Allah revealed in terms of Ahkaam (rulings), whether it was a command or forbiddance. That is because the Lafzh (worded expression ‘مَا’ (maa) mentioned in the Aayah is from the forms of generality and as such it encompasses all of the revealed Ahkaam (rulings). Allah has forbidden His Messenger and the rulers of the Muslims after him to follow the desires of the people and to listen to their wishes, when He ‘Azza wa Jalla said: وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ “And do not follow their desires” … Similarly, Allah warned His Messenger and the rulers of the Muslims after him from the people who seduce or tempt them so as to divert them from the application of some of what Allah has revealed to them in terms of the Ahkaam. Rather, it is obligatory upon him (and the rulers) to implement all of the Ahkaam that Allah revealed upon him, whether they were commands or forbiddance, without paying any regard or attention to what the people want. That is when Allah Subhaanahu said: وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ “And beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you”.

2 – And Allah Ta’Aalaa said: وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ “And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers” [Al-Maa’idah: 44] and in a second Aayah ﴿وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ﴾ “Then they are the oppressors/ transgressors” and in a third Aayah وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ “Then they are the rebelliously disobedient”. And so Allah, in these three Aayaat, has made the one who does not rule by all that Allah has revealed in terms of Ahkaam, whether they are commands or forbiddances, a Kaafir (disbeliever) if he denies them and a Zhaalim (oppressor) and Faasiq (rebellious disobedient) if he does not deny them but does not rule by them… That is because the ‘مَا’ (maa) mentioned within the three Aayaat is from the form of generality and as such it encompasses and includes all of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah that Allah revealed whether they are commands or forbiddances.

3 – This is what the rightly guided Khulafaa’ were upon in respect to the application of the Ahkaam of Islam upon the lands which had been opened (to Islam) and they were the most knowledgeable of people in respect to the Book of Allah Exalted and the manner of how the Messenger of Allah ﷺ applied the Ahkaam. Their application of Islam (May Allah be pleased with them) was as a whole in one go without delay, procrastination or gradualism. So they did not allow the one who entered into Islam to drink alcohol or commit Zinaa (fornication) for a year for example and then after that prevent and forbid that… Rather all of the Ahkaam were applied and this matter is Mutawaatir and thorough proven in respect to the application of the Ahkaam upon the opened lands.

Fourthly: Consequently, no Zhanni (indefinite) Daleel has been reported in respect to this Hukm (ruling). Therefore, the prohibition of the Tadarruj (gradualism) and the obligation to apply the Ahkaam of Islam, all of that is established by the Qat’i Nass (definite text). That means that any Zhanni (indefinite) evidence which has a Shubhah Dalaalah (semblance of an indicative meaning) is in contradiction to the Qat’i (definite) in the case where the Qat’i overrides it. That means that the Zhanni must be understood in accordance to that which does not contradict or oppose the Qat’i. Expressed differently, it means making the two evidences work is sought with the Zhanni in accordance to that which does not conflict with and contradict the Qat’i if that is possible. If it is not possible then the process of At-Tarjeeh (outweighing) is sought which means taking the Qat’i and discarding the Zhanni.

Fifthly: And now, is it possible to make the two evidences work together, meaning is it possible to understand the Zhanni in a manner that does not contradict the Qat’ii within the issue of gradualism in respect to the application of Islam? So let us examine the evidences that were presented within the question:

1 – The Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) about Khamr (intoxicants):

Al-Bukhari reported in his Saheeh from Yousuf Bin Mahak who said: I was in the presence of ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers (ra) when an Iraqi approached her. And so he said: What type of shroud is the best? She replied: What is the matter with you, what does it matter? He said: Mother of the believers, show me your Mus’haf (copy of Qur’an)? She asked: Why? He said: So that I can compile the Qur’an and order it because it is being recited in an unordered manner. She said: And what is the problem to you which Aayah you recite first? The first that was revealed were from the Mufassal, mentioning paradise and the fire. That was until when the people came to Islam and the Halal and the Haram were revealed and had the first thing to be revealed been: And do not drink Al-Khamr, they (the people) would have said: We will never leave alcohol. And if it had been revealed: Do not fornicate, then they (the people) would have said: We will never leave Zinaa (fornication). It was revealed to Muhammad ﷺ in Makkah whilst I was a little girl who still played:

بَلِ السَّاعَةُ مَوْعِدُهُمْ وَالسَّاعَةُ أَدْهَى وَأَمَرُّ

“Nay but the hour is their appointment [for due punishment] and the hour will be more grievous and bitter”

(Al-Qamar: 46)

whilst Surah Al-Baqarah and An-Nisaa’ were not revealed until I was his with him. He (Yousuf the narrator) said: Then she took out for him the Mus’haf and dictated to him the verses of the Surah.

So where is the Dalaalah (indicated meaning) in the statement of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) for gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah?! Verily, ‘Aa’ishah (ra) explained to the Iraqi questioning about the first or early revelation of the Qur’an that they are the Suwar (chapters of Quran) discussing the Islamic Aqeedah and that was until the people believed in Islam. Then when the people believed the Suwar which discussed the Halal and the Haram were revealed i.e. the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah. There is nothing within it suggesting that gradualism took place in respect to application of the Halal and the Haram. Rather, it is the opposite of that, indicating to the complete application of the Halal and the Haram… All that is indicated in this matter, is that Allah Subhaanahu did not reveal the Ahkaam of the Halal and the Haram at the beginning of the revelation until the people had first believed in Islam. Then when they had believed He Subhaanahu revealed upon them the Aayaat of the Ahkaam and then they applied and implemented them… The following was mentioned in Fat’h ul-Baari’ in respect to the explanation of this Hadeeth: (Its statement: Until the people came (to Islaam) … (Then) its statement: Then the Halal and the Haram were revealed… guides to the divine Hikmah (wisdom) in respect to the ordering or the revelation and that the first to be revealed of the Qur’aan was the call to Tawheed and giving tidings to the obedient believer of Jannah (paradise) and the disobedient disbeliever of the Hellfire). Then when the souls were at peace and assured upon that then the Ahkaam (rulings) were revealed…) End.

Consequently, this ordering of the revelation of the Suwar of the Aqeedah first and then followed by the Suwar of the Ahkaam (legal rulings) conforms to the true reality of the matters. That is because those who do not believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Day of Judgment will never respond affirmatively to the command of Allah Subhaanahu. As such, it was necessary to first invite them to Iman and Tawheed and then after their positive response and acceptance, the Takleef (legal responsibility) in respect to the Ahkaam would follow… So what is the relationship between this and to the gradual application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i upon the Muslims within the lands of the Muslims?!

2 – The subject of the suspension of the Hadd (prescribed punishment) of theft in the time of ‘Umar (ra):

Verily, ‘Umar (ra) did not undertake any action from amongst the acts of gradualism regarding the application of the Hadd (prescribed punishment) of theft. That is because the Hadd of theft was applied immediately upon its revelation in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and remained applied in the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar and the times of the remaining Khulafaa’… As for what ‘Umar (ra) did, then he applied the Hukm Ash-Shar’i as has been stated in Islam, meaning that he didn’t suspend any Shar’i Hukm (ruling). Rather, he applied it as it is must be done. That is because there are circumstances or situations in which it is not permitted for the hand to be cut in them and one of those is the situation of the famine in which it is not permitted to cut the hand within it. I will now mention some of the evidences for the non-permissibility of cutting the hand in the year of the famine:

– As-Sarkhasi mentioned in Al-Mabsoot that he said that it was related from Mak’hool (ra) that the Prophet ﷺ said: «لَا قَطْعَ فِي مَجَاعَةِ مُضْطَرٍّ» “There is no amputation in the compelling famine”.

– It was also mentioned in Al-Mabsoot of As-Sarkhasi that it was narrated from Al-Hasan from a man who said: I saw two men who were tied up and meat. So I went with them to ‘Umar (ra). Then the one possessing the meat said: “We had an ‘Usharaa’ (pregnant she-camel) that we were waiting for (its delivery) just as the fertile spring is waited for. But then I found that these two men had slaughtered it”. So ‘Umar said: “Would you be content to accept two similar ‘Usharaa’ (pregnant) camels in place of it? That is because we do not cut the hands at the time of Al-Ithq and not in the year of the famine”.

The ’Usharaa’ is the pregnant she-camel that has reached ten months of its pregnancy and is approaching her birth and as such it is the dearest thing to its people whilst they await its fertility and abundance in respect to its milk just like they await the coming of spring. And in respect to his statement: ‘For verily we do not cut in the ‘Al-Idhq’…’, which some have related it as ‘Al-Irq’ although ‘Al-Idhq’ is the most common, refers to meat. Its meaning is therefore that there is no cutting (amputation of the hand) in the year of the famine due to the Daroorah (necessity) and dire need i.e. the hunger and the famine (drought).

– Ibn Shaibah extracted in his Musannaf from Ma’mar who said: Yahya Bin Abi Katheer said: ‘Umar said: “The (hand) is not cut in regards to the ‘Idhq (meat) and not in the year of the famine”.

Therefore, the non-occurrence of the Hadd of theft in the year of the drought “i.e. the year of the famine” returns to the Hukm Ash-Shar’i in respect to the non-occurrence of the Hadd of theft in the year of the famine… That means that ‘Umar (ra) did not go beyond working in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’i by not applying the Hadd of theft upon the one who stole in the year of the famine … That is because that is the Hukm Ash-Shar’i in this case and circumstance… So where does this fit into gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah?!

3 – The story of ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz with his son:

It is well-known that the Umayyad State was the Khilafah State and that it did not implement anything other than Islam although some violations and injustices took place by some of the Khulafaa’ and Wulaah (governors). So when ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz assumed the role he continued the application of Islam upon the people completely as it is and he did not undertake a gradual approach in respect to the application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah upon the people at all in the case where for instance he would apply Islamic rulings whilst leaving others… However, he, may Allah be pleased with him, was eager to lift the injustices and return the rights to their people. This had been related to the Khulafaa’ who has preceded him from Bani Umayyah and it required verification, thorough examination and a great effort. That was because some of the properties that some of the assistances of the Khulafaa’ had many hands that had passed over them whilst some of the wealth or properties had been spent or turned into other types of commodities of trade, buying and selling. There were people whom rights belonged to who had passed away or had gone off to other parts of the world… All of that required effort and hardship in respect to the thorough examination, verification and ascertaining matters… ‘Umar thought to compel the sons of the Khulafaa’, their assistants and likes to return those injustices without problems or annoyance… And as such he began to demand that from them to put an end to the Mazhaalim (injustices) and to place the rights in the deserving places and there is no doubt that this demands both time and effort… And when Abdul Malik entered and saw his father dealing with this equation or problem he was driven by the zealous concern of youth saying to his father that he should end and deal with this matter quickly. Then came the response of ‘Umar to him as was mentioned in the sources related to this issue… There is nothing, under any circumstances, anything within it indicating gradualism but rather it relates to applying the Hukm as it is after taking the necessary examination and thorough investigation in order to acquire knowledge of the injustices, all of that takes its right. In order to make this clear we will make mention of this issue from its sources.

It is important to note that the historical narrations and Hikaayaat (accounts) (With the form Hakaa An.. i.e. He reported that) can be looked at and examined if there are no Ahaadeeth mentioned in that subject area. If there are however then these Ahaadeeth are taken (and referred to) … I say this because in the question, historical narrations and accounts were mentioned about the story of ‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra) which mention the subject of Khamrah (alcohol) whilst the narrations in the Ahaadeeth about the story of ‘Umar and his son do not contain the subject area of Al-Khamrah (alcohol). As such, what is mentioned in the Hadeeth is taken whilst the historical narrations and accounts are left…

The following are some of the Ahadeeth that relate the story of ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz and his son Abdul Malik:

– ‘Huliyat ul-Awliyaa’ and Tabaqaat Al-Asfiyaa’ by Abu Na’eem Ahmad Bin Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Ishaaq Bin Mousa Bin Mahran Al-Asbahaani (deceased 430 AH):

Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Ja’far relayed, Ahmad Bin Al-Husein Al-Hadhaa’ relayed, Ahmad Bin Ibrahim told us, Mansoor told us, Shu’aib told us, Muhaddith told us: That Abdul Malik Bin ‘Umar Bin Abdul-Aziz entered upon ‘Umar and then said: “O Ameer of the believers, I have a need to speak to you, so provide me with privacy” and Maslamah Bin Abdul Malik was there with him and so he (Maslamah) said to him (Abdul-Malik): “Is there a secret that your paternal uncle is not privy to?” He replied: “Yes” and so Maslamah stood up and left and then he sat in front of him (‘Umar) and said to him: “O Ameer of the believers, what are you going to say to your Lord tomorrow when He questions you? You have witnessed innovation which you have eliminated or a Sunnah that you have not revived? So he (‘Umar) said to him: “O son, is this a matter that you have been made to bring up to me from the subjects or is this an opinion that has come from yourself?” He replied: “No, by Allah, it is a matter that I have seen from myself whilst I have known that you will be held to account for, so what are you saying?” And so his father said to him: “May Allah have mercy upon you and reward you with good on behalf of your father, because by Allah, I have hoped for you to be from amongst those who assist upon goodness. O son verily your people, have consolidated this matter knot by knot and bind by bind and when I wish to challenge them head on to take away that which is in their hands I am not assured that it will not open a fissure or wound from which a lot of blood will be spilled, and by Allah the perishing of the world is lighter to me than the spilling of even a small amount of blood. Or would you be content, that there does not come a day upon your father from amongst the days of the Dunyaa except that he has eliminated within it an innovation and revived a Sunnah, until Allah passes judgement between us and our people upon the truth, and He is the best of Judges?”).

– ‘Huliyat ul-Awliyaa’ and Tabaqaat Al-Asfiyaa’ by Abu Na’eem Ahmad Bin Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Ishaaq Bin Mousa Bin Mahran Al-Asbahaani (deceased 430 AH):

“Al-Hasan Ibn Kaysan told us… Isma’eel Ibn Ishaaq Al-Qaadi told us, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr told us, Sa’eed Ibn ‘Aamir told us, related from Juwairiyah Bin Asmaa who said: Abdul Malik Bin Umar Bin Abdul Aziz said to his father Umar: “What prevents you from seeing through your opinion in this matter, for by Allah I do not care that we are boiled in pots of water as a result of seeing through this matter?” So Umar said: “I am preparing the people in a process of taming that is difficult, and so if Allah wills for me to live on I will continue and persevere upon my opinion and my death is brought forward, then Allah is aware of my intention. I fear that if I confront the people head on unexpectedly with that which you are saying, that it will compel me to resort to the sword, and there is no good in a matter that is only dealt with by the sword””. End.

– ‘Al-Amru Bil-Ma’rouf Wan-Nahyi ‘An il-Munkar Lil-Khallaal’ by Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Haroon Bin Yazeed Al-Khallaal Al-Baghdadi Al-Hanbali (deceased 311 AH):

“Abdul Malik Al-Maimuni informed me… Ahmad Bin Hanbal told us, from Mu’tamir Bin Suleyman, from Furaat Bin Suleyman, from Maymoon Bin Mihraan, from Abdul Malik Bin Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, that he said to his father: “O father, what prevents you to stay the course upon that which you want in terms of justice? For by Allah, I do not care that I and you are to be boiled in pots as a result”. He said: “O my son, I am only taming (preparing) the people is a difficult process of taming. Verily, I wish to revive the matter of justice but am delaying that until I am able to take out the coveting of the covetousness of the Dunyaa, so that they flee from this (i.e. injustice or corruption) and find tranquillity upon this (i.e. justice)”.”

It is clear from these Ahadeeth that the matter does not relate to the application of the Islam upon the people and taking a gradual approach in respect to that. Rather, it is related only to the restoration of the rights to their rightful people and lifting the injustices that had taken place in the times of the Khulafaa’ who preceded ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz… So where is the link to Tadarruj (gradualism) concerning the application of the Ahkaam of Islam where Islam is mixed with Kufr within this?

4 – Ahadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ about the delegation of Thaqeef:

A – ‘Uthman Ibn Abi Al-‘Aas related that when a delegation from Thaqeef came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ they were set down by the Masjid so that it would be softer to their hearts. Then they stipulated upon him that they would not Yuhsharoo (be gathered) and not Yu’sharoo (give the Ushr) and not Yujabbaw (pray). So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to them:  «لَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تُحْشَرُوا، وَلَا تُعْشَرُوا، وَلَا خَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَيْسَ فِيهِ رُكُوعٌ»“You don’t have to Tuhsharoo and not Tu’sharoo, and there is no good in a Deen that does not have in it a Rukoo’ (i.e. prayer)” This is the worded version recorded by Abu Dawud. Not Yujabbaw (لا يُجَبَّوا) is from At-Tajbiyah (التجبية) which means the Rukoo’ and it has been expressed as Majaaz (metaphorically) to mean the Salaah (prayer).

B – In another Riwaayah (report) from Abu Dawud also related from Wahb he said: I asked Jaabir about the affair of Thaqeef when they gave the Bai’ah (pledge)? He said: They stipulated upon the Prophet ﷺ that there would be no Sadaqah upon them and no Jihaad and that he heard the Prophet ﷺ saying after that: «سَيَتَصَدَّقُونَ، وَيُجَاهِدُونَ إِذَا أَسْلَمُوا» “They will give Sadaqah and undertake Jihaad when they have become Muslim”.

– The first Hadeeth related from ‘Uthman Bin Abi Al-‘Aas is taken even though Al-Mundhiri did say about him (And it was said that Al-Hasan Al-Basri had not heard of ‘Uthman Bin Abi Al-‘Aas) although the statement here is in the form (Seeghah) of the Majhool (unknown) and as such it is possible to use it as evidence. And the second Hadeeth narrated from Wahb is a Saheeh Hadeeth.

– It is not valid to understand from the two Hadeeths the permissibility of the gradualism manifested in the application of a part of the Ahkaam and leaving a part. That is because the definite Adillah (evidences) establish the prohibition of At-Tadarruj (gradualism) in respect to the application of the Ahkaam (rulings).

– As such, either the two Hadeeth are understood in accordance to that which does not contradict the Qat’i (definite) evidences where both evidences are worked with and utilised, the Qat’i and the Zhanni, or the Qat’i evidences are worked with and the Zhanni (indefinite) are discarded, in the case where it is not possible to work with both of them together. This means that Al-Jam’u (bringing the evidences together) is attempted if that is possible and if not then At-Tarjeeh (outweighing) is resorted to, in which case it is known that the Qat’i (definite) overrides the Zhanni (indefinite).

– In the Hadeeth of ‘Uthman Bin Abi Al-‘Aas the Messenger of Allah ﷺ accepted from the Thaqeef delegation (لا تحشروا ولا تعشروا ولا يستعمل عليكم غيركم) (That they don’t gather (laa Tahsharoo), they don’t give ‘Ushr (Laa Ta’sharoo) and that other than them will not be appointed over them) however he did not accept from them the leaving of the Salaah. As for not appointing someone over them in the case where the Wali over their Wilayah is from amongst the people of the Wilayah, then there is no problem in that as this is permissible in origin if someone of capability is found amongst them. However, what is the meaning of ‘Laa Tahsharoo’ and Laa Ta’sharoo’that came in the Hadeeth? It is said in ‘Al-Lisaan’ (dictionary) that the meaning of ‘laa yahsharoon’ (لا يحشرون): (Meaning they are not assigned to military expeditions and they are not compelled to undertake missions … and it is said that they will not gather for the Zakaah collector to take the Sadaqah of their properties/wealth). It was also mentioned in ‘Al-Lisaan’ about the meaning of ‘Laa Ya’sharoon’ (لا يعشرون): (That it means not to take the ‘Ushr (tenth) of their wealth/properties and it is said that the meaning of the obligatory Sadaqah is meant by it). Consequently, it is possible to understand the Hadeeth for (Laa Tahsharoo) to take the meaning that they will not gather for the Zakaah collector and pay their Zakaah to him but rather they will pay in their own places, meaning that it is the collector who goes to their places and takes the Zakaah from them, which is in line with one of the meanings of ‘Yahsharoon’ (يحشرون). And it is possible to take the meaning of ‘Laa Ta’sharoo’ as meaning that the tenth of their wealth is not taken and this is one of the meanings of ‘Ya’shiroon’ (يعشرون).

Therefore, what they stipulated as conditions and what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ agreed to was that they pay the Zakaah of their wealth in their own places and that the tenth is not taken from them but rather only the Zakaah. So it is permitted for the one who wishes for Islam to stipulate the paying of his Zakaah in his place and that the ‘Ushr is not taken from him but rather only the Zakaah and this is permissible and there is nothing in that. In this way the Jam’u (bringing together) of the Ahaadeeth has been accomplished between the Hadeeth and the Adillah Al-Qat’iyah (the definite evidences).

However, the second narration of Abu Dawud related by Wahb states: I asked Jabir about the affair of Thaqeef when they gave the Bai’ah (pledge)? He said: They stipulated upon the Prophet ﷺ that there would be no Sadaqah upon them and no Jihaad and that he heard the Prophet ﷺ saying after that:  «سَيَتَصَدَّقُونَ، وَيُجَاهِدُونَ إِذَا أَسْلَمُوا»“They will give Sadaqah and undertake Jihaad when they have become Muslim”. This then would outweigh the meaning of ‘La Yahsharoo’ to mean not to be assigned for military expeditions (i.e. not undertake Jihaad) and the meaning of ‘La Ya’shiroo’ would mean not to give Zakaah. In such a case the Hadeeth would be Khaass (specific) to the delegation of Thaqeef and that the acceptance of them not undertaking Jihaad or not giving Zakaah represents a specific text (Nass Khaass) in respect to them (alone) and it does not apply beyond them to other than them. That is because the Hukm Khaass (specific ruling) does not extend beyond the one that it is for. The Hukm Al-Khaass requires a Qareenah (linking indication) for its specificity so that it does not extend beyond it and the Qareenah here is the informing of the Messenger ﷺ that they will give Zakaah and they will undertake Jihaad if they become Muslim and that their condition would have no reality to it. That is whilst the ‘Ilm ul-Ghaib (Knowledge of the Unseen) does not occur to other than the Messenger ﷺ and so it represents a Qareenah for this Hukm being Khaass. Specific rulings (Ahkaam Al-Khaassah) are known in the Sharee’ah like for example: The testimony of Khuzaimah which the Messenger ﷺ considered to be equal to the testimony of two men and this is specific to him alone and does not extend beyond him to anyone else. Another example is the sacrifice of Abu Bardah of the goat which had reached six months and this was specific to him and did not extend to other than him and that is because the sacrifice of the goat obliges the reaching of a year.

In this way the two evidences are worked with: Gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam is prohibited in accordance to the definite evidences whilst the gradualism in respect to the Jihaad and the Zakaah is specific to the delegation of Tahqeef due to the knowledge of the Messenger ﷺ that if they become Muslim that they will undertake Jihaad and give the Zakaah.

Sixthly: Summary Conclusion:

• Gradualism by applying a part of the Ahkaam and leaving another part is Haraam due to the definite evidences related to that.
• The Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) does not contain any indication of gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah but rather only discusses that the Aqeedah preceded the Ahkaam in regards to the chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed.
• ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) did not suspend the Hadd (prescribed set punishment) of theft and did not apply gradualism in respect to its application. Rather, he acted in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’i by not applying the Hadd for theft upon the one who steals in the time of the famine.
• ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not utilise gradualism in respect to the application of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iah and that is because that which was being applied within the Ummayad state was the Shar’a alone and there was not within the state any other Ahkaam other than the rulings of Islam. What was related about him is related to the lifting of the injustices and the restoring of the rights to their people…

The Hadeeth of Abu Dawoud with its two narrations where the Messenger ﷺ did not agree for them to leave the Salaah and accepted their condition of not performing Jihaad and giving the Zakaah, represents a Hukm Khaass (specific ruling) attached to that delegation, and that was because the Messenger ﷺ knew by way of the Wahi (Divine Inspiration) that their condition would never have a reality attached to it because when they become Muslim they will partake in Jihaad and give the Zakaah. That means that the two Hadeeth are not discarded but rather they are brought together (Al-Jam’u) with the definite evidences (Al-Adillah Al-Qat’iyah) which guide to the prohibition of At-Taddaruj (gradualism) in regards to applying a part and leaving a part of the Ahkaam. And that is according to how we have explained it (above).

• Therefore, the study of all of the evidences that the proponents of gradualism present for gradualism in the application of the Shar’a makes clear and evident that they do not indicate or guide to gradualism but rather they guide to other matters that have no relationship with gradualism or they are specific evidences for specific circumstances… It is not possible to oppose the definite evidences that indicate to the prohibition of gradualism in relation to the application of the Shar’a as has been explained in detail above… Consequently, those who advocate the view of gradualism do not have any Daleel or Shubhat Daleel (semblance of an evidence) that makes it permissible to rule by a part of Islam and to rule by a part of Kufr (disbelief). This a major (serious) matter and a great Munkar that is in opposition to the definite evidences related to the obligation to rule by all that came in Islam in terms of Ahkaam (rulings). Alhamdu Lillahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

19th Ramadan 1437 AH

Corresponding to 24/06/2016 CE

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

https://www.facebook.com/AmeerhtAtabinKhalil/photos/a.122855544578192.1073741828.122848424578904/497800833750326/?type=3&permPage=1

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Google Plus page:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100431756357007517653/100431756357007517653/posts

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Twitter page:

https://twitter.com/ataabualrashtah/status/754805053773471744

Rio 2016: Gold for Capitalism’s failure

As the 2016 Olympic euphoria continues, a very different form of competition has been brewing on the streets of Rio De Janeiro. It is a race not for gold, but for survival. A fight not between athletes but between the elite and destitute. For many years the world has been fixated on Brazil’s prodigious growth, yet simultaneously oblivious to the extreme levels of inequality it harbours. Almost 20 million people in the country live on approximately $1 a day, whilst the richest 10% receive roughly 50% of all income as opposed to the poorest 10% who receive around only 1%.[1]
Lest we forget, Brazil was once considered ‘Latin America’s gold standard for economic and social development’, yet today we find it to be the complete antithesis.[2] It has shrunk for five consecutive quarters, with economists expecting it to contract further by 4.3% this year.[3] In fact the value of Brazil’s economy has dropped from $2.6 tn to a staggering $1.8 tn, over the course of five years alone.[4] To make matters even worse, unemployment has risen to almost 11 million and the country has accumulated a massive budget deficit (10.4% of GDP) in desperate attempts to resuscitate the economy from its recessionary malaise.[5]
Despite the country’s political and economic failings, it still maintains the temerity to host the World Cup and the Olympic games that have, for decades, attracted worldwide attention. However, with such attention has come great criticism against Brazil’s hypocrisy. It was found that roughly 30 million children live in poverty, and were subject to harsh environments involving violence, trafficking, hard labour, prostitution, drugs, begging, slavery and sexual exploitation. Further still, these figures have only deteriorated in preparation for Rio 2016.[6] In fact, both the Olympics and the World Cup have exacerbated the situation, particularly when a considerable number of employees have lost their lives in the process and when a great number of families have been cleansed by forced evictions to make space for the futility of a few games.[7]
This is clearly far from a sporting event but rather a political tool for the Brazilian government to flaunt its ostensible wealth so as to conceal its own systemic failure. Upon this pretext, a great deal of capital (approximately $12 bn overall) will be squandered on the Olympics to purport a healthy economy, when most of it could have actually been spent seeking just that.[8] There is clearly a lack of accountability over those in power to spend their budget appropriately for the betterment of society and whilst the people suffer the massive opportunity costs, sponsors will reap the profits from their investments, only to leave when the event concludes – caring not for the Brazilian people but for the size of their wallets. Evidently then, Brazil is a failing country much like many of its emerging counterparts (BRIC) that are often put forward as capitalism’s success stories.

To blame Brazil however, for Brazil’s failure is akin to missing the forest for the trees. Endemic inequality is not a matter of policy nor president or prime minister, it is an ideological issue inherent to capitalism. The incessant fixation on olympic growth (for the rich) as opposed to distribution (for the poor) should not come as a shock, for it is a mentality filtered within most developed/developing nations that sustain the laissez-faire system, and it is certainly a problem familiar to the people. As Joseph Stiglitz once aptly said ‘the rules of the market economy had been written to serve the interests of the one per cent’.[9] It is therefore necessary that we realise the very systemic nature of this problem and how it has clearly manifested in Rio De Janeiro.

The world must look past the Olympic façade and unto the depravity that surrounds them. It is Islam that holds the true solution to capital inequality and global poverty. Unlike capitalism, it is concerned first with the necessity of preserving life before the luxury of entertainment. The Islamic economic system would hasten to meet the needs of the impoverished within the favelas and it would be the first to extinguish corruption and iniquity on the streets of Rio. Further still, it would be a duty upon the neck of the Caliph to pull the poor out of their poverty by redistributing capital from the elite towards the destitute via an effective wealth-based taxation system.

In fact, the one who rules by Islam is held under close inspection; if he spends the people’s wealth on useless matters that do nothing to alleviate their issues (much like the Olympics), he would be accountable for it. This is better understood when Muhammad (saw) once said:

“The one who takes people’s wealth intending to pay it back, Allah will pay it back for him, and the one who takes it intending to waste it, Allah will waste him” and that “each of you is a guardian and each of you is questioned over his subjects, the Imam who is responsible over the people and he is questioned over his responsibility, and the man is responsible over the people of his household and he is questioned over them, and the woman is responsible over her husbands house and his children and she is questioned over them, and the slave is a guardian over the wealth of his master and he is questioned over it, each of you is a guardian and each of you is questioned over their responsibility.” (Muslim/ Bukhari)

Indeed, it is not through the display of gold medals that Islam gains its strength, but it is through the protection of its people and the ability to solve their problems that it becomes respected in the eyes of muslims and non-muslims alike. It is therefore imperative for the world, and in particular the people of Brazil, to realise that Islam is the only ideology that is able to solve their dire economic and political situation and that capitalism has failed (and will continue) to do just that.

---

[1] ICCO, 2016. The facts on Brazilian income inequality. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.icco-international.com/int/news/blogs/nadine-de-vogel/the-facts-on-brazilian-income-inequality/. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[2] Hakim, P., 2016. Commentary: Here’s what really went wrong with Brazil’s economy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-latinamerica-brazil-economy-commentar-idUSKCN0YH08D. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[3] BBC, 2016. Brazil’s economy shrinks for fifth consecutive quarter. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36425427. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[4] WBG, 2016. Brazil GDP. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[5] BCB, 2016. Brazil Government Budget. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/government-budget. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[6] Cuadros, A., 2016. The Broken Promise of the Rio Olympics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/building-barra-rio-olympics-brazil/493697/. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[7] Kewifio-Okai, C., 2016. Rio Olympics: benefit or burden for poor communities in Brazil? [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jul/01/rio-olympics-benefit-or-burden-poor-communities-brazil. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[8] Prada, P., 2016. Olympics may shine but plenty to lament in recession-hit Rio. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-rio-crisis-idUSKCN100146. [Accessed 13 August 2016].
[9] Stiglitz, J., 2015. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate, says economic inequality is a choice. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joseph-stiglitz-economic-inequality-1.3326999. [Accessed 13 August 2016].

- 

Ibn Ceaser 

Axis of Resistance – An American created Deception to maintain its Hegemony in the Muslim World

 The modern day superpower politics is nothing but an art of deception. Depending on how well you deceive the populace and your opponents confirm your stay at the top. Niccolo Machiavelli who is considered the founder of modern political science said in his seminal work, “The Prince,” “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” He further writes, “men are so simple so obedient to present necessities that he who deceives will always find someone who will let himself be deceived…Being clever is crucial. A genuine person is not what matters. Are you able to fulfil your ambition? Your survival and repression of others is the key.”

It seems that the modern day politicians have learnt their lessons well from Machiavelli. Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister, once said in his meeting with former Soviet President Stalin, that the “truth is precious that it must be protected with a bunch of lies.” The same reality applies to the global superpower today, America, which has exploited every opportunity to manufacture consent among the masses about its enemies and friends, so much so, that the world has today accepted the American narrative and has begun to see the world through the fraudulent American lens. The deceptions were and are prevalent in its policies and plans, be it the past or the present.

‘Axis of Resistance’ is one such deception which America propagated and aggrandised in order to serve its own interests. This article is an attempt to unveil what agenda did the “Axis of Resistance” brouhaha served for America.

‘Axis of Resistance’ was the term first used by a Libyan newspaper Al-Zahf Al-Akhdar in response to the term “Axis of Evil” used by the US President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002. Axis of resistance came out to be known as anti-Israel and anti-western alliance between Iran, Syria along with Lebanese militia Hezbollah. In May of the same year, the undersecretary added another term “Beyond the Axis of Evil” and included Syria in it. In short America declared to the world that Iran and Syria are its enemies and attempted to manufacture this feeling among the masses. It is interesting to note that the inclusion of Iran and Syria in the axis of evil came at the time when Syria was providing America with useful counter-terrorism intelligence and Iran had played a significant role in the ouster of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Let us look at the historical events in order to get a sense of the US – Iran relations.

There is no doubt that the Shah of Iran was brought to power by the British backed coup (Operation Boot) known as “28 Mordad Coup” in Iran, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh. However, things began to change in the late 1970s when the masses jointly rose against the Shah.

Though Russia was making inroads in Afghanistan by attempting to export its communist ideology at least since the 1950s, it was only during the middle of the Cold War phase, that Russia planned to put boots on the ground in order to get access to the warm waters. The alert Americans engaged the Mullas who were busy ousting Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. Initially the revolution was an emotional outburst of the people against the Shah and was not expected to change the regime in Iran. Even Khomeini did not expect the success of the revolution and bought a house in France in order to settle down in case of the failure of revolution. However, with the engagement of American military and intelligence in the region, the revolution turned out to be successful in overthrowing Shah.

Besides, America also gave the green signal in July 1978 to the CIA to do promotional campaigns for revolutionising people against the communist government in Afghanistan which was loyal to Moscow. Meanwhile in Iran, America continued to give assurance to Shah that it will defend him but eventually left him to fend for himself. The American Ambassador to Iran at that time, William Sullivan, mentioned that the then National Security Advisor, Zbignjew Brzezinski confirmed several times to Shah that America supports him and will support him till the end. The White House policy was contradicting their words as they had full knowledge that the Turban Man – Al-Wali Al-Faqih – will take his place.

This is what exactly, Machiavelli mentions under the heading “The Subtle Art of Lying” in his book “The Prince,” “Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have considered keeping their word of little account, and have known how to beguile men’s minds by shrewdness and cunning. In the end these princes have overcome those who have relied on keeping their word.”

America decided not to send their aircraft carrier (US Constellation) to the Indian Ocean to support the infantry. This decision created confusion in the Iranian camp and literally paralysed the Iranian army from doing any action until the stability was brought back by Khomeini. Recently revealed documents have also proved that Carter’s administration literally paved the way for Khomeini and held the army back from launching a military coup. This is what made the Shah weak as he was depending on US forces and it allowed Khomeini to eliminate the top level officers who were loyal to the Shah. He executed more than 200 of the Shah’s security officials which eventually led to the collapse of the monarchy giving the reigns of the country to Khomeini. Later the Hostage crisis was staged to present to the world that Khomeini’s system was an enemy to the strongest colonial power in the world and to make an impression that there is no connection between America and Khomeini.

The hostage crisis lasted for 444 days, however with the election of the Republican candidate Ronald Regan, Khomeini released the hostages on January 20, 1981. With the outbreak of the Iran – Iraq war, America made a contract to secretly transfer advanced weaponry to Iran and to release some of its hostages that were kidnapped during the Lebanese civil war. The Iranians played a major role in the kidnapping of the hostages and America cracked a deal with Iran to get the hostages released in lieu of supplying weapons. The whole affair later came to be known later as “Contra Affair.” The Jewish entity was taken in loop to transfer the weapons to Iran. George Bush, the then vice president in the Reagan administration, arranged the meeting with then Iranian vice president Abolhassan Banisadr in Paris in the presence of the delegate of then Jewish entity’s intelligence Ari Ben Menashe, who became instrumental in transferring weapons to Iran. In this way Khomeini accomplished strategic benefits by making the latter accept its demands.

In this way, America got rid of Reza Shah whom the British appointed to serve their interests. America further managed to stem the tide of communism that was running through the middle of Asia. It also began to kindle the fire of sectarianism in the region between the Shias and the Sunnis. It made the Sunnis weary of the growing influence of Iran and its desire to take control of the region by exporting its ideology in the region and by changing the marja-e-taqleed from Iraq to Iran. The Sunnis began to export Wahabbism in order to contain Iran’s ideological presence and unfortunately it all led to Muslims losing the vision of thinking of the caliphate – the divine political doctrine for the Muslims. The growing fear of Iran led the weary Gulf States to fall in line with America in order to make them secure from the regional threat.

The situation in Syria reveals a similar kind of plot. The Alawites had been a major supporter of the French mandate during their rule and in return the Alawites received political autonomy as the French bolstered them and supported them against the Sunnis. Post Second World War, it was a series of military coups in Syria which resulted in the fluctuating influence of Britain and America in the region. After 5 military coups, the final coup of 1970 brought Hafez al-Assad to power and this led the situation to settle in favour of America when Hafez gave Al-Golan Heights to the Jews. In doing so, America succeeded in spreading and consolidating its wings in Syria.

A cursory glance at the events in Syria unveils the myth and clears the air that it will never be part of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ to America. It is nothing but serving the American interests under the garb of fighting American imperialism. The master-slave relationship blossomed with the support of Al-Assad to America in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It further strengthened with America’s war on terror where Al-Assad’s son Bashar toed the line of the US. Besides, the forty years’ rule of the Assad regime has not witnessed a single bullet shot against the Jewish entity, hence maintaining the American plan of the two-state solution, considering the safety of the Jews.

 In addition to it, the implementation of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, which put the onus of maintaining the stability of Iraq on the neighbouring Iran and Syria, corroborates the great aid that both Syria and Iran are providing for the realisation of American interests in the region. Syria has also helped in maintaining the influence of American in Lebanon. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon in 1976 led to the American influence in Lebanon and with the initiation of the Cedar Revolution in 2005, Europe – France and Britain, attempted to bring Lebanon under their influence. However, with their loyal agent Assad who assassinated the opposition leaders like Rafiq Harir, Gibran Tueni, etc., America managed to retain its influence in the region.

The beginning of the 21^st century saw America unleashing its military strength on Afghanistan and Iraq under the garb of “war on terror”. Iran significantly helped America in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani declared this shameful act of Iran’s help to America in Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany in 2002. Similarly, when America found itself in the Iraqi quagmire, Iran offered to share the burden and the political solution of dividing Iraq in to three factions Shias, Sunnis and Kurds got impetus.

‘Axis of Resistance’ is now known to all as an agenda that serves the interests of America clandestinely. The countries in the axis have proved themselves as good as the master wants his slaves to be in serving the imperialist goals of America in the region. America knows the importance of these slaves, especially Iran, and hence worked hard to maintain them and helped them in getting rid of the problems they face. It saved Iran from the pressures of Europe and the Jewish entity, as they were demanding international sanctions against Iran. The Jewish entity even gave the hint of military action against Iran. America’s efforts appears clear from the following:

-      America strived to save Iran from the threat of international sanction from Europe and the Jewish entity. US Intelligence also declared that there was no Iranian nuclear threat and maintained this stance from 2007 to 2010.

-      Millions of demonstrators descended to the streets in support of the reformist candidate against Ahmadinejad in what is known as the Green Revolution, however America turned a blind eye to what the Iranian administration did when they attacked the peaceful demonstrators.

Today the false veil of animosity between America and Iran is beginning to rip off. The statements from America are now all the more direct in praising Iran so as to make Iran work more directly and openly with America. On January 16, 2016 it was said that the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran has completed the necessary steps under the Iran deal that will ensure Iran’s nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful. US President Obama said, that the diplomatic boycott of Iran will not serve the American interests. In order to pacify Europe and the Jewish entity, he further said that because of the agreement Iran will not have nuclear weapons, assuring that the deal with Iran will make the world a safer place. On the other hand, Iran welcomed this deal and its President Hassan Rouhani described the agreement as a great victory for Iran. He further called the American people as well as the world to invest in his country. Hence America helped Iran by relieving it from the sanctions and at the same time obliged Europe and other entities to accept it.

As for the Bashar Al-Assad regime, America’s silence on his crimes speaks volumes. It has been five years since he has been maiming citizens of his own country, torturing them, using chemical weapons, destroying homes, yet America has allowed the situation to prolong in its quest for an alternate to Bashar. In order to further the rule of Bashar, America uses Iran to support and bolster the falling Assad regime because Assad’s fall before America finds an alternate would be a negative outcome for America. In addition to it, America called in Russia to bomb and destroy the sincere Mujhahedeen in order to pressurise them to come to negotiating tables to come to a compromise. At the same time, it used its agent Saudi Arabia to bring the Mujahedeen to table through conferences in Riyadh during the end of the year 2015. All these efforts are done in order to maintain the Ba'ath regime till the time America finds a solution to this quagmire by getting someone from its agents to take the place of Bashar. America should understand that it's too late now and soon the tide will turn against it and all of its agents.

Finally: To conclude, the Axis of Resistance is nothing against America, but rather it is a coalition of countries waiting to serve America at the drop of the hat and in any issue, even if it means killing millions of their own citizens. America saw in the Mullahs of Iran and in the Alawites of Syria a Trojan horse serving its benefits in the Middle East. Iran significantly provides America a helping hand in all its tasks in the region and so does Syria by being a slave to America. Hezbollah too is a stick in the hands of America which it wields as per its convenience.

With the understanding related to Iran and Syria with respect to America becoming clearer with every passing day, it becomes necessary for the faithful people to destroy and dismantle their plots and plans. It is required to work hard to get rid of the agents and to achieve the great victory that awaits us. Time has now arrived to tear down the curtains of this corrupt system and announce the death of the international capitalist system, which has become the cause for all the misery in the world. It is time to raise the calls and work hard for the return of the Khilafah as foretold through the noble narrations of the Prophet. It is time to say good bye to America and its cronies and present and spread the light of Islam to the whole globe.

﴿وَيَقُولُونَ مَتَىٰ هُوَ قُلْ عَسَىٰ أَن يَكُونَ قَرِيبًا﴾

“They say: When will it be? Say: it will perhaps be soon.”[TMQ Surah Isra: 51]

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by

Ibn Ansari

New book - Essays on Ijtihad in the 21st Century by Abu Ismael Al-Beirawi published

Due to the intellectual decline that has affected the Muslims throughout the last few centuries the subject of Ijtihadhas become vague in the minds of many, unfortunately, including some thinkers as well as Ulema. Different extremes exist, some believe the doors of Ijtihad are closed whereas others have broken the doors of Ijtihad altogether. The following are some of the key misconceptions that have crept into the minds:

a) The doors of Ijtihad are closed i.e. it is impossible and not permitted to undertake Ijtihad today.

b) The scope of Ijtihad includes most things including definitive matters such as the prohibition of Riba (usury) and the prohibition of having nation states with a multiplicity of rulers in the Muslim world. It allows Islam to be reformed in order to apply to the modern age.

c) Ijtihad is only personal reasoning and not the hukm of Allah i.e. it is the reasoning of an individual and therefore cannot be a shariah rule.

d) Ijtihad is an individual obligation (Fard Ayn) and therefore Taqleed (following an opinion of a Mujtahid) is prohibited (haram).

This book “Essays on Ijtihad in the 21^st Century” is a compilation of independent articles written over a period of time, put together in a logical sequence. Written in a lucid language this book is a suitable read for all those who want to understand the practical reality of Ijithad and how it can be applied to the current reality. 

This key Islamic concept needs to be understood even more so in this era where the enemies of Islam attempt to defame it and portray it as a backward religion unable to deal with modernity and the challenges of the technologically advanced world. The doors of Ijtihad are not only open, rather it is a great Islamic duty, a fard kifaya (obligation of sufficiency) and the revealed method by which we are able to extract the rulings of Islam for all problems we face until the day of judgement. 

Besides the confusion over Ijtihad, there is ambiguity over the definition and conditions of a Mujtahid. This book explains the types of Mujtahid namely the Mujtahid Mazhab, Mujtahid Masála andMujtahid Mutlaq.

Chapters of the book include:

- 
- Ijtihad and Applying it in the 21st Century – This chapter explains in detail what Ijtihad is, its scope and how it is indispensable for the Muslims to practice it.

- Evidences for Ijtihad – This chapter clarifies that Ijtihad is not something new, rather it is something which is the part of Islam since the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

- The Mujtahid – This chapter is about the conditions for Ijtihad and the types Mujtahid.

- Exposing the Call for Reformation – This chapter elaborates how the word Ijithad is misused today by those who attempt to reform Islam and make it compatible with the secular liberal values.

- Understanding Dar al-Kufr (land of disbelief) and Dar al-Islam (land of Islam).

- Between Sufism and Salafism.

- Moon sighting – Distinguishing between nationalism, political allegiance & fiqh (jurisprudence).
- Understanding Illah (legal reason) and Qiyas (analogy).

   
The book is available to purchase through the following link. 

Syria’s al-Nusra Announces Split from al-Qaeda

In a long awaited dec­la­ra­tion, the leader of [what was for­merly known as] Jah­bat al-Nusra, Abu Muham­mad Al-Julani declared the dis­so­lu­tion of Nusra and in an all the more dras­tic step, the for­ma­tion of a new group, Jab­hat Fath al-Sham, which would no longer be affil­i­ated with al-Qaeda. The dec­la­ra­tion comes as no sur­prise, as debates inside and out­side of the group have been brew­ing over the past months over the need to break with al-Qaeda, a debate which was all the more exac­er­bated fol­low­ing the for­ma­tion of the inter­na­tional coali­tion against ISIS and the ten­sions that emerged between Nusra and other Jihadist fac­tions such as Ahrar al-Sham. In fact, sev­eral key fig­ures in Nusra have long advo­cated for this split. The most promi­nent of whom was Abu Maryam al-Qahtani. Early this week, reports indi­cated that Jab­hat al-Nusra’s Shura Coun­cil had taken the deci­sion to split from al-Qaeda, and that an announce­ment was forthcoming.

The state­ment begins with Julani thank­ing al-Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahari, for their con­tri­bu­tions to the Jihad in Syria. Julani goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden, in stress­ing that the inter­ests of the Ummah must be given pri­or­ity to those of any orga­ni­za­tion. The state­ment, metic­u­lously worded, makes the split appear more like an ami­ca­ble break with al-Qaeda than a sev­er­ance. Sit­ting to the right of al-Julani was Abu al-Farj al-Masri and to his right, Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Shami. Abu al-Faraj, whose real name is Ahmad Salamah Mabrouk, is an Egypt­ian scholar who was released shortly after the Jan­u­ary 25th rev­o­lu­tion. Soon there­after, he joined the Syr­ian rebels in 2011. Accord­ing to many observers, al-Faraj is a senior jurist in al-Nusra. Abu ‘Abd Allah, also known as ‘Abd ar-Raheem ‘Atoon, is a promi­nent mem­ber of al-Nusra’s Shura Coun­cil and a promi­nent jurist. In appear­ing before cam­eras, with these two senior jurist, al-Julani is demon­strat­ing that the deci­sion, far from being prag­matic, was under­taken under the aus­pices of Islamic precedents.

The declared objec­tives of the new group is the estab­lish­ment of the Shari’ah and jus­tice in Syria, the uni­fi­ca­tion of Jihadi fac­tions in Syria, the preser­va­tion and con­ti­nu­ity of the Syr­ian rev­o­lu­tion and pro­vid­ing Mus­lims with all nec­es­sary forms of aid and assis­tance in order to alle­vi­ate their condition.
There are sev­eral motives behind this split. First and fore­most, Nusra has long been polarised among other rebel fac­tions for its transna­tional Jihadist vision and its affil­i­a­tion with al-Qaeda. As part of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra had lit­tle room to artic­u­late a strat­egy for Syria given the over­ar­ch­ing and global nature of al-Qaeda’s polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary objectives.
Sec­ondly, regional pow­ers have grap­pled with the ques­tion of al-Nusra’s sta­tus, as to whether or not the orga­ni­za­tion should be listed as a “ter­ror­ist group” or not. This ques­tion became all the more crit­i­cal given that many foreign-backed rebel groups are mil­i­tar­ily and logis­ti­cally allied to al-Nusra.
Shortly after the dec­la­ra­tion, mil­i­tary offi­cials belong­ing to the inter­na­tional coali­tion were quick to announce that the change in name did not exempt Nusra from its strikes and that it remained a ter­ror­ist group. In fact, in Julani’s state­ment, no indi­ca­tion is made that the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity might recon­sider the group’s sta­tus in Syria and goes on to men­tion that the United States and Rus­sia are ene­mies of the Syr­ian rev­o­lu­tion. This should also, in no way, be viewed as a break from the Jihadi move­ment. In the days pre­ced­ing the dec­la­ra­tion, reports sug­gested that the lead­ing Salafi Jihadi scholar, Abu Muham­mad al-Maqdisi, was con­sulted on whether or not the group should split and appar­ently al-Maqdisi sup­ported the move. Other Jihadi rebel groups were also quick to applaud the split. Abu Hamza al-Hamwi, the leader of Jund al-Sham, stated that the split was a pos­i­tive step towards the uni­fi­ca­tion of rebel groups in Syria and a deci­sion which con­formed to the inter­ests of the Syr­ian revolution.

What then, is the pri­mary objec­tive behind this dec­la­ra­tion? Spec­u­la­tions could be made, such as; allow­ing greater coop­er­a­tion with regional actors, open­ing the door for ide­o­log­i­cal lax­ity, adopt­ing more ambiva­lent and “mod­er­ate pos­tures”. But spec­u­la­tions aside, one thing is clear; the split from al-Qaeda and the dis­so­lu­tion of al-Nusra is a major pub­lic rela­tions move intended to improve the organization’s image inside Syria. This is all the more sub­stan­ti­ated by the fact that the orga­ni­za­tion went as far as chang­ing its name. That is to say, it wanted to make clear that we have com­pletely bro­ken all ties, and this is our new face. The dis­as­so­ci­a­tion with al-Qaeda, in and of itself, seems to be the key change. Fol­low­ing Julani’s dec­la­ra­tion, the group released a 15-point man­i­festo that in no way dif­fers from their pre­vi­ous polit­i­cal and ide­o­log­i­cal stances. Now that the orga­ni­za­tion has more room to man­age its own image inside and out­side Syria and artic­u­late a strat­egy inde­pen­dent of exter­nal orga­ni­za­tions, it can play a more pow­er­ful polit­i­cal role in Syria. Given that the orga­ni­za­tion was affil­i­ated with al-Qaeda and its dis­tinct polit­i­cal objec­tives, such a polit­i­cal pos­ture inside Syria was nearly impos­si­ble. Fur­ther­more, these shifts seem to be part of a larger trend among Jihadist who are increas­ingly domes­ti­cat­ing their Jihad. That is not to say, how­ever, that al-Nusra has come to terms with the nation-state with­out nec­es­sar­ily accept­ing its ide­o­log­i­cal baggage.

The for­ma­tion of Jab­hat al-Sham coin­cides, be it inten­tion­ally or oth­er­wise, with sev­eral crit­i­cal devel­op­ments in Syria’s com­plex mil­i­tary and polit­i­cal land­scape. For starters, rebels have lost most of East­ern Aleppo to the Syr­ian Arab Army, which has also cut off most roads lead­ing inside and out­side of the province. Sec­ondly, the United States and Rus­sia have reaf­firmed their joint com­mit­ment to strike al-Nusra in Syria and restart­ing peace-talks. At this point, it is dif­fi­cult to spec­u­late how the split will affect the Syr­ian rev­o­lu­tion. Given that al-Nusra has now shed its affil­i­a­tion with al-Qaeda, we can expect stronger coor­di­na­tion with rebel groups which had been pre­vi­ously appre­hen­sive about al-Nusra. In turn, this is likely to com­pli­cate the already frag­ile and com­plex rela­tion­ship between these rebel groups and regional power-brokers. On a more inter­na­tional level, it might deepen the schisms between regional pow­ers that wel­come the [long awaited] split with inter­na­tional pow­ers like the United States and Rus­sia, who have dis­missed it as being mean­ing­less.
-
Ali S. Harfouch
Source