2 November 2008 – British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is currently visiting the Gulf asking oil-rich states to replenish the International Monetary Fund’s coffers and invest in British businesses as the country enters a recession. He said they had a responsibility to contribute “hundreds of billions” more to the IMF’s emergency bailout package “to lend to those countries at risk of financial collapse” and said he was keen on them investing in British business, following the example of Manchester City Football Club and Barclays Bank, which this week raised £5.8 billion from funds in Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Commenting on Brown’s visit, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, “The gall of Brown and other western leaders is amazing. This crisis originated in the US sub-prime market and has been magnified by the casino of the derivatives market . As people in the West fundamentally question the banking and finance system that has brought this disaster and profits in the hands of rich financiers, it is extraordinary that these Arab regimes are now buying up and bailing out a failed product. They are throwing good money after bad, wasting Muslim oil resources on bailing out the gambling debts of western banks.”
“The system brought obscene private profits for some in the banking industry but losses are to be shared between the tax payer and the oil rich Gulf states. Yet, only last week we saw third-quarter profits of £6.4 billion at BP and £5 billion at Shell. Why doesn’t Brown demand a bail out from these companies?”
“Gulf states have not raised a finger to help poorer Muslim countries facing huge fuel and food price hikes preferring to buy foreign football Clubs and pump money into Barclays bank despite the massive losses of previous bailout investments from these Sovereign Wealth Funds.”
“All the talk of bringing ‘freedom and democracy’ to the Muslim world is on hold as oppression and dictatorship make for more reliable ‘bankers’ when it comes to bailing out disaster capitalism.”
“Saudi Arabia refused help to Pakistan forcing it to turn to the IMF who demand humiliating conditions such as curbing the size of the armed forces, and who will further cripple the country with high interest rates. Yet, the largest supporter of the IMF and the world’s largest debtor - the US - does not follow IMF dictates.”
“Now is a time for real vision from the Islamic world, that can only come from the establishment of the Islamic Khilafah state. The Muslim world needs the Islamic economic system, distinct from other systems. A system that will:
1. See oil as a public property and as such oil revenues need to be used to help the poor and hungry and not bail out banks, football clubs or finance the oppression of the IMF.2. A finance system that does not run on interest, and a currency backed by gold and silver such that people have real confidence in the system.3. A market that has clear rules of trade defined by the Shariah, not subject to manipulation, that facilitates free trading within these rules in a real economy - not a casino economy”
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Article 13, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah
The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستور
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
Article 13: In essence, one is innocent. No one should be punished without a court ruling. It is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone and whoever does this will be punished.
Explanation and evidences:
This article covers three issues: The principle of innocence, the prohibition of imposing a penalty without a judge’s sentence and the prohibition of torture.
As for the first issue, its evidence is derived from what Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Simak on that of Alqama Ibnu Wa’il Ibnu Hajr Al-Hadhrami on that of his father who said: “A man from Hadhramout and a man from Kindah came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Hadhrami said: “O Messenger of Allah, this man has taken from a land which belonged to my father.” The Kindi said: “It is my land, it is in my possession and I am farming it. He has no claim over it.” the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to the Hadhrami: “Do you have any proof?” He said: “No.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “In this case you have his oath.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah! He is a rebel, he does not care what he swears and he does not fear of anything.” He (saw) said: “You have no other rights over him but this.” Al-Tirmithi also reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) has decreed that the onus of the oath lies with the defendant.” Abu Issa said that this Hadith is Hassan and Sahih; the learned scholars, from among the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and others, have been acting upon it; notably that tha onus of providing the proof lies with the plaintiff and that of the oath lies with the defendant.” In the first Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; and in the second Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained that in essence, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “He whose wealth I have taken, here is my wealth, let him take from it, and he whose back I have lashed, here is my back, let him lash it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said this in his quality as ruler; it means that he who has been wrongly punished, let him retaliate against me; this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, Ibnu Maja reported in his Sunan on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman. For doubts have been raised over the way she speaks, the way she dresses and over the people who go to her.” This means that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her because there was a lack of proof despite the doubts raised over her behaviour. This understanding is confirmed by what Imam Ahmed reported in his Masnad on the authority of Abu-z-Zinad on that of Al-Qassim Ibnu Mohammed who heard Ibnu Abbas say: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered a “Mula’ana” i.e. a sworn allegation of adultery between Al-Ajlani and his wife. He said: “and she was pregnant. Al-Ajlani said: “By Allah I did not approach her since we made Afr (i.e.sprinkle the soil with dust), an Afr means that the palm trees are watered two months after pollination. He said that her husband had thin legs and arms and had red hair; the one she was accused to have committed adultery with was Ibnul Samha’. She gave birth to a black boy who had frizzy hair and chubby arms. So Ibnu Shaddad said to Ibnu Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman?” He said: “No, that was a woman who used to display vice after Islam.” Meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven neither through evidence, nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, and despite this, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her, for this has not been confirmed. He (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone such and such woman.” The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something; thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which Shari'ah deems it to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a judiciary court; because the evidence could not admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
However, the ruler reserves the right to take someone accused of a crime into custody before the charge is established, pending a court appearance to look into the charge brought against him. However, the detention should be for a limited period of time and it would be wrong to detained the accused for an indefinite period. This period must be short. Evidence about the permissibility of detaining the accused is derived from what Al-Tirmithi reported on the authority of Bahzi Ibnu Hakim on that of his father on that of his grandfather who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) did detain a person accused of a crime and then he released him.” It has also been reported on the authority of Bahzi Inbu Hakim that “The Messenger of Allah (saw) detained someone accused of a crime for a day and a night.” Evidence about the obligation of specifying the period of detention is that the Messenger of Allah (saw) detained him and then released him and that he detained him for a day and a night. Besides, this detention is not a penalty; it is rather a detention aimed at helping with the enquiries.
As for the third matter, it denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty upon the accused before the charge against him has been established; it also denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty which Allah (swt) had made a punishment in the hereafter, that is Hell fire; i.e. the prohibition of punishing by burning with fire. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment before establishing the charge, its evidence is derived from the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in which he (saw) was reported to have said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone her..” Despite the fact that she was known to be an adulteress according to what Ibnu Abbas reported. If it were fitting to inflict punishment upon the accused in order to confess, the Messenger of Allah (saw) would have punished that woman to make her confess, knowing that she was indiscreet about her illicit behaviour. It is absolutely forbidden to punish the accused and it is absolutely forbidden to beat the accused before the charge has been established. It is also forbidden to insult him or to inflict upon him any punishment as long as his guilt has not been confirmed. This is backed by what Ahmed reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not in one occasion impose a penalty for drunkenness. “Ibnu Abbas said that a man consumed alcohol and got intoxicated; he was spotted staggering in a mountain pass so he was taken to the Messenger of Allah (saw). As he neared the house of Abbas, he gave his escort the slip and entered Abbas’s house and hid behind him. They mentioned this to the Messenger of Allah (saw), so he laughed and said: “He did it.” Then he (saw) did not order them with anything regarding him.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not punish that man because he did not confess, nor were the charges against him established in his presence. This means that he was accused of drunkenness but this was not confirmed, thus he was not punished in order to make him confess, and no penalty was imposed upon him just for the mere accusation. Therefore, it would be wrong to inflict any punishment on the accused prior to the establishment of the charge before a competent judge and in a court of law. As for the reports of “Al-Ifk” (the lie) incident, stipulating that Ali ® did beat the slave-girl before the Messenger of Allah (saw), that slave-girl was not accused, thus it cannot be used as evidence denoting the permissibility of beating the accused. Besides the Hadith of Ali’s beating of Burayrah, the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) slave-girl, was reported by Bukhari and he said that Ali said the Messenger of Allah (saw): “Ask the slave-girl.” And it was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who did the asking. Bukhari did not mention that Ali had beaten the slave-girl. To quote from the Hadith: “O Messenger of Allah, Allah has not made it hard upon you and there are plenty of other women apart from her, and if you asked the slave-girl she would tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) summoned the slave-girl and said: “O Burayrah!…” In another narration of Bukhari, it was reported: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) came to my house and asked about my slave-girl, so she said: “No by Allah, I do not know of any blemish, apart from the fact that she would sleep until the ewe would enter and eat her dough. One of his Sahaba did rebuke her and said: “Tell the truth to the Messenger of Allah…” Bukhari did not mention that Ali had beaten the slave-girl. However, in other reports, it was mentioned that Ali ® had beaten the slave-girl. Ibnu Hisham mentioned that he did beat her. In the Sirah of Ibnu Hisham it was reported: “As for Ali, he said: “O Messenger of Allah (saw) Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave-girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) called Burayrah to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying: “Tell the Messenger of Allah the truth.” To which She replied: “I know only good of her.” Assuming that this report is sound, it however does not stipulate the permissibility of beating the accused, because the slave-girl Burayrah, was not accused in this case and it cannot be said that she was a witness. She was not beaten for being a witness because the Messenger of Allah (saw) did ask other people but did not beat them. He (saw) asked Zaynab Bintu Jahsh nad he did not beat her, despite the fact that her sister Hamna Bintu Jahsh used to spread rumours about Aysha; Bukahri reported in the Hadith of Al-Ifk: “..And her sister Hamna set about fighting her battle, so she perished alongside those who perished.” Hence, Zaynab was suspected of knowing something and she was quizzed, but she was never beaten. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that Burayrah was beaten in her quality as a witness; she was rather beaten in her quality as the slave-girl of the Messenger of Allah (saw). The Messenger of Allah (saw) is entitled to beat his slave-girl and to order her beating. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did ask his slave-girl and he asked others as well, at the same time, he kept silent over Ali’s beating of the slave-girl and over the reprimand of the Sahaba; but he (saw) did not beat any other person, nor did he keep silent over the beating of any other person, which indicates that he (saw) permitted her beating because she was his slave-girl; and one is entitled to beat his slave-girl in order to discipline her or to investigate a matter. Therefore, this Hadith cannot be used as evidence about the permissibility of beating the accused and the evidence pertaining the prohibition of his beating stands; this is reflected in the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “If I were to stone anyone I would stone so and so..” Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to beat, insult, reprimand, or torture the accused. It is however permitted to detain him because there exits an evidence about this.
This is as far as the prohibition of inflicting a penalty upon the accused prior to establishing the charge is concerned. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment which Allah (swt) has made a punishment in the Hereafter, its evidence is reflected in what Bukhari reported on the authority of Ikrimah who said: “A group of apostates were brought to the Amir of the believers Ali ® so he burnt them; Ibnu Abbas heard of this and said: If I had been him, I would not have burnt them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has prohibited this by saying: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” I would have killed them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who changes his Deen must be killed.” Bukhari also extracted on the authority of Abu Hurayrah ® who said: “the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us in an expedition and said: “If you find so and so, burn them with fire.” As we were about to set off the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to us: “I had ordered you to burn so and so, and only Allah punishes with fire, so if you find them kill them.” Abu Dawood extracted from the Hadith of Abdul-Rahamn Ibnu Abdullah on that of his father who said: “We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) on a journey, and while he (saw) went to the privy we came across a hen with two chicks; we its two chicks so it came and started spreading out its wing. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) came and asked: “Who grieved this hen with its offspring? Give it back its offspring.” He (saw) also saw a colony of ants which we had burnt, so he asked: “Who burnt this?” We said: “Us.” He said: “No one should punish with fire except the Creator of fire.” Therefore, if the accused were proven to be guilty before a competent judge and before a court of law, he should not be punished by fire, nor by that which is similar, such as electricity, nor by anything which Allah (swt) punishes with. Furthermore, it is forbidden to inflict any punishment from among those not decreed by the Legislator. This is so because the Legislator has determined the penalties to be imposed upon the guilty parties. These are killing, lashing, stoning, banishment, cutting, imprisonment, destruction of property, imposing a fine, vilification and branding any part of the body. Apart from these, it is forbidden to inflict upon anyone any other type of punishment. Hence, no one should be punished by burning with fire, though it is permitted to burn his property, nor should anyone be punished by pulling his nails, nor by pulling his eyebrows, nor by electrocution, nor by drowning, nor by pouring cold water over him nor by starving him, nor by letting him go cold, nor by anything similar. Punishing the accused should be confined to the penalties decreed by Shari'ah and apart from these, the ruler is forbidden from applying any other form of punishment. Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone, and who does so will be violating Shari'ah. If it is established that someone has tortured anyone else, he will be punished. These are the evidences of this article.
Views on the news - 13/11/08
Obama chooses Muslim haters as his advisors
Recently Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff has raised consternation amongst Arab nations. Emanuel is an avid Israeli supporter. He holds an Israeli passport and joined the Israeli army reserve during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. A prominent Israeli newspaper, Maariv described Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as "our man in the White House". No less has been attention attracted by Sonal Shah’s appointment as an advisor. Shah and her family have connections with religious Hindu parties including the Bahartia Janta Party (BJP). BJP is well known for its hatred for Muslims and played an instrumental role in the Gujrat massacre in 2002. Both appointments underscore that America will continue to look favorably towards Israel and India, and its position towards the Muslim world is not about to soften.
Minster says Britain’s parliament is too white
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet, said the British parliament was too white and male to have "sensible" debates on a string of issues. Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, warned that the legislature would have "no legitimacy" if it is seen as a "narrow and self-serving elite". "We cannot sensibly discuss the veil (in the Commons) when there is no Muslim woman MP; it was impossible to discuss domestic violence when there was 97% men in the Commons," she was quoted as saying by the Evening Standard. It appears that Obama’s victory in the US has forced many European countries, especially Britain to restructure their political landscapes and make it more appealing to domestic and international audiences.
Enemy of Muslims praises King Abdullah for his peace initiative
This week at an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Shimon Peres the enemy of Muslims praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative. "Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia," he said. "I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It's right. It's needed. It's promising. The initiative's portrayal of our region's future provides hope to the people and inspires confidence in the nations." Peres was referring to the Saudi peace plan, proposed in 2002, which calls for Israel to withdraw from parts of occupied Palestine in exchange for Arab recognition. Peres’s overtures coincide with Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza. Once again the rulers of Saudi Arabia have betrayed the Palestinians by openly supporting the brutal occupation by the Jewish state. Allah says: “The Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their belief”.
Russia’s constitutional reform points to Putin’s return as president
On 13/11/2008 the Times reported that Russia’s parliament is rushing through plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six. A constitutional amendment is to be fast-tracked through the Duma, the lower house of parliament, which will vote this week on all three readings of the Bill. Deputies usually take weeks to consider legislation over three readings before passing it into law. The speed of reading is leading to speculation that Vladimir Putin plans a dramatic return to the Kremlin. An unnamed Kremlin adviser was quoted in Vedomosti, a daily business newspaper, last week as saying that the reform was intended to restore Mr. Putin to the presidency as early as next year. He became Prime Minister after selecting Mr. Medvedev to be his successor in elections in March. Under such a scheme Mr. Medvedev would enact the amendment and some unpopular social reforms. He would then resign and call a snap election in 2009 to make way for Putin to return. This would allow Putin to govern for two more terms of six years each, until 2021, allowing him to continue with his aggressive policies against America and the West.
Pakistan raises interest rate to please IMF
On 12/11/2008 the state bank of Pakistan raised its interest rate from 13% to 15%. The rate increase comes at a time when all the major economies in the world are slashing interest rates to save their economies from recession. Pakistan is following in the footsteps of Ukraine and Vietnam; both increased interest rates to qualify for IMF bail out packages. Pakistan does not require the IMF loans to rescue its economy. Rather, Pakistan needs abandon wholesale the capitalist economic solutions it copies from the West and return to Islamic economics. This includes a return to the gold standard, taxation on wealth, restriction on the privatization of public utilities, default on international loans and pursuance of industrialization on a war footing. These solutions can only be implemented through the re-establishment of the Khilafah. The Khilafah is the only system that will ensure economy self-sufficiency for Pakistan and its people.
13/11/2008
Recently Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff has raised consternation amongst Arab nations. Emanuel is an avid Israeli supporter. He holds an Israeli passport and joined the Israeli army reserve during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. A prominent Israeli newspaper, Maariv described Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as "our man in the White House". No less has been attention attracted by Sonal Shah’s appointment as an advisor. Shah and her family have connections with religious Hindu parties including the Bahartia Janta Party (BJP). BJP is well known for its hatred for Muslims and played an instrumental role in the Gujrat massacre in 2002. Both appointments underscore that America will continue to look favorably towards Israel and India, and its position towards the Muslim world is not about to soften.
Minster says Britain’s parliament is too white
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet, said the British parliament was too white and male to have "sensible" debates on a string of issues. Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, warned that the legislature would have "no legitimacy" if it is seen as a "narrow and self-serving elite". "We cannot sensibly discuss the veil (in the Commons) when there is no Muslim woman MP; it was impossible to discuss domestic violence when there was 97% men in the Commons," she was quoted as saying by the Evening Standard. It appears that Obama’s victory in the US has forced many European countries, especially Britain to restructure their political landscapes and make it more appealing to domestic and international audiences.
Enemy of Muslims praises King Abdullah for his peace initiative
This week at an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Shimon Peres the enemy of Muslims praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative. "Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia," he said. "I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It's right. It's needed. It's promising. The initiative's portrayal of our region's future provides hope to the people and inspires confidence in the nations." Peres was referring to the Saudi peace plan, proposed in 2002, which calls for Israel to withdraw from parts of occupied Palestine in exchange for Arab recognition. Peres’s overtures coincide with Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza. Once again the rulers of Saudi Arabia have betrayed the Palestinians by openly supporting the brutal occupation by the Jewish state. Allah says: “The Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their belief”.
Russia’s constitutional reform points to Putin’s return as president
On 13/11/2008 the Times reported that Russia’s parliament is rushing through plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six. A constitutional amendment is to be fast-tracked through the Duma, the lower house of parliament, which will vote this week on all three readings of the Bill. Deputies usually take weeks to consider legislation over three readings before passing it into law. The speed of reading is leading to speculation that Vladimir Putin plans a dramatic return to the Kremlin. An unnamed Kremlin adviser was quoted in Vedomosti, a daily business newspaper, last week as saying that the reform was intended to restore Mr. Putin to the presidency as early as next year. He became Prime Minister after selecting Mr. Medvedev to be his successor in elections in March. Under such a scheme Mr. Medvedev would enact the amendment and some unpopular social reforms. He would then resign and call a snap election in 2009 to make way for Putin to return. This would allow Putin to govern for two more terms of six years each, until 2021, allowing him to continue with his aggressive policies against America and the West.
Pakistan raises interest rate to please IMF
On 12/11/2008 the state bank of Pakistan raised its interest rate from 13% to 15%. The rate increase comes at a time when all the major economies in the world are slashing interest rates to save their economies from recession. Pakistan is following in the footsteps of Ukraine and Vietnam; both increased interest rates to qualify for IMF bail out packages. Pakistan does not require the IMF loans to rescue its economy. Rather, Pakistan needs abandon wholesale the capitalist economic solutions it copies from the West and return to Islamic economics. This includes a return to the gold standard, taxation on wealth, restriction on the privatization of public utilities, default on international loans and pursuance of industrialization on a war footing. These solutions can only be implemented through the re-establishment of the Khilafah. The Khilafah is the only system that will ensure economy self-sufficiency for Pakistan and its people.
13/11/2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi to rule by the law of kufr?
The following is a chapter from the book 'The Da'wah to Islam' by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud which can be downloaded from http://www.khilafah.com/images/images/DawahToIslm.pdf
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi, who had embraced Islam, to rule by the law of kufr?
The one who carries Islam truthfully, and works with sincerity to re-establish it in ruling and life, whether as an individual or group, is not able to participate in any kufr rule, while claiming that he is working to destroy it. This is because participating in a kufr rule, which applies the systems and laws of kufr, is consolidation of the systems of kufr and not destruction of them. The proof that may be brought, to justify participation in a kufr rule, is nothing but self-deception, before deception to Allah (swt) and the believers. Especially when that proof is in conflict with the Shar’ee evidences, which are definite in meaning and authenticity.
It is indeed a severe test and a great sin, for the da’wah carrier to resort to taking a maslahah (interest), which his mind deduces, but the Shar’a did not consider, as an evidence to justify for himself his opposition to the text that is definite in meaning and authenticity. Or for him to resort to something not amounting to be a shubhat ad-daleel (semblance of an evidence), in order to justify participation in a kufr rule, which governs by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed; even though participation in kufr rule contradicts the evidences that are definite in meaning and authenticity. These evidences oblige ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.
They take the story of an-Najashi - whose death the Messenger (saw) announced to the Sahabah the day he died and then prayed Salatul Janazah for him - as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. They take the view that the Najashi had embraced Islam in the time of the Messenger (saw) and continued to rule by the system that he used to rule with before he had embraced Islam, even though it was a non-Islamic system. To prove this, they cite six ahadith, reported by al-Bukhari, relating to Najashi’s death and the prayer that was performed for him. Three of them have been narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari and the other three by Abu Hurayra. Even though these six evidences cannot stand up as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by kufr systems and laws. The following points will explain this matter.
1- When Bukhari reported these ahadith, he placed five of them under the heading ‘Bab mawt an-najashi’ (Chapter on the death of an-Najashi) and he reported the sixth in ‘bab al-janaaiz’ (Chapter of funeral prayers). All six ahadith are to do with the death of an-Najashi, the Messenger’s (saw) informing of the Sahabah about his death, that he was a pious man, and he was their brother, then he (saw) ordered them to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, and to pray with him the funeral prayer for an-Najashi. These indicate that he was a Muslim.
2- Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani, in his book ‘Fathul Baari’ (commentary on the Sahih of Bukhari), commented on Bukhari’s report (on the incident) under the title ‘death of an-Najashi’ rather than his report on his conversion to Islam. He said; “There was confusion that al-Bukhari did not report about his (ie an-Najashi) conversion to Islam, which is its true place, and instead he reported his death. This was because the story related to his embrace of Islam was not proved to him, while it is explicit in his death. So he reported his death story to understand that he (an-Najashi) embraced Islam from the prayer of janazah on him.”
3- The wording of the ahadith reported by al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger (saw) knew of Najashi’s death and his embracing of Islam on the day of his death via revelation. It also indicates that the Sahabah did not know of his embracing of Islam and his death, except when the Messenger (saw) informed them of it. Thus, in the hadith of Jaabir, he said; “The Messenger (saw) said when the Najashi died: ‘Today a pious man has died. So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah.’” In the hadith of Abu Hurayra, it mentioned that; “The Rasool of Allah (saw) informed them of the death of Najashi, the ruler of Habasha, on the day that he died.” This indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of the Najashi’s death and embracing of Islam via revelation on the day that he died. The Messenger’s (saw) saying to to the Sahabah, as narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah, that, “Today a pious man has died”, and, “So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah”, indicates that they had not known of his embracing Islam, because if they had known that before, there would have been no need for the Messenger (saw) to use such expressions ‘a pious man’, ‘your brother’. This is because he (saw) did not use such expressions when he used to call them to the funeral prayer when one of the Sahabah died.
4- These ahadith indicate that the Najashi had embraced Islam shortly before his death, but they did not explain when he embraced Islam. The wording indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of his death and embracing of Islam through revelation on the day he died, as mentioned before. There is not any authentic report that mentions that the Messenger (saw) was informed of his embracing of Islam at any other instance.
5- These six ahadith contain nothing to indicate that the Najashi, whose death the Messenger (saw) informed the Sahabah of, was the same Najashi who was the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) when the Muslims migrated to it. As well, there is nothing to indicate that he is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter in which he invited him to Islam. This is because the word ‘Najashi’ is not a proper noun for a specific person. Rather it is a laqab (title) given to every ruler who ruled Habashah, as reported by an-Nawawi in the second volume of his book ‘Sharh Sahih Muslim’ and as reported by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani in the third volume of his book ‘Al-Isaabah.’
6- In volume twelve of Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi commented that the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyyah, was not the Najashi for whom the prophet (saw) prayed the Janazah. The text of the hadith is as follows; “Narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant, inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
From this hadith it becomes clear that the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) prayed is not the Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated, in order to live under his protection, and he is not the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) wrote a letter in the sixth year of the Hijrah inviting him to Islam. Rather he is the Najashi who came to power after the death of the Najashi to whom the Prophet (saw) sent a letter with ‘Amr b. Umayyah ad-Damri inviting him to Islam. He did not respond and did not embrace Islam, because if he had responded and embraced Islam, the Messenger (saw) would have informed the Sahabah of this and prayed for him, and Ja’far b. Abi Taalib and the immigrants would have known about his conversion. They returned to the Messenger (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Makkah ie after the Messenger (saw) had sent the letter to the Najashi. If he had embraced Islam, then it would have been a cause for reverbation and celebration amongst the Muslims, especially after the conquest of Khaybar. The Messenger (saw) would then have informed them of his conversion, and not restricted his saying regarding the coming of Ja’far; “I do not know what gives me more joy; the conquest of Khaybar or the arrival of Ja’far.” [Sira of Ibn Hisham]. He should have added: ‘Or by the conversion of Najashi.’ But he did not mention Najashi in this hadith, even though the situation would have necessitated it, if he had responded to his (saw) da’wah and embraced Islam.
7- Those who took the opinion that the Najashi for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Janazah prayer is the same Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated and entered into his protection, and the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah; they mistakenly took this view, because the Najashi to whom the Muslims made hijrah was the one whom the Messenger (saw) commended, praised and described to those who wished to emigrate to him by saying: “He is a King, under whom no one is oppressed, and his land is a land of truth.” [Ibn Hisham]. This is because he gave the best protection for those who migrated to him from the Muslims, and gave them security, so they were able to worship Allah (swt) not fearing anyone. He also refused to hand them over to the two delegates of the Quraysh who demanded this, against the wishes of his patriachs. He prevented them from this, protected them, and told them both; “You are safe in my land and whoever abused you will be fined (punished).” It is also because of his comment on Ja’far’s answer, when he asked him about what the Messenger (saw) had brought; “Indeed this matter and what ‘Isa has brought emanate from the one lamp”, beside his comment on Ja’far’s answer on the second day, when he asked him about their view of ‘Isa, where he took a stick from the ground and said; “By Allah, Isa bin Maryam did not exceed what you said more than (the width of) this stick” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. From all this, they thought that he had embraced Islam even though the Messenger (saw) had not announced his embracing it. Similarly, Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet (saw) who was one of the immigrants to Habashah, did not mention that he had embraced Islam, when she talked about him and about what happened to them in the land of Habashah, when she said; “When we arrived in the land of Habashah, we had the best neighbour; The Najashi. We felt safe in regards of our deen, worshipped Allah (swt) without being harmed and did not hear anything we might hate…” She also said; “By Allah, we were in such a state, until a man emerged in the Habashah who challenged his authority.” She said; “We did not ever know a sadness such as happened to us at that time, fearing that man might defeat the Najashi, and hence another man might come who does not recognise of our right, as the Najashi did.” She said; “After Allah gave victory to the Najashi against his enemy, and strengthened him in his land, by Allah, we never knew a delight as we had then.” “The Najashi returned (from the battlefield) when Allah destroyed his enemy and strengthened him in his land, and the affair of al-Habashah put in good order. So we remained in his neighbourhood, in the best home until we arrived to the Rasool of Allah (saw) while he was in Makkah.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. This hadith of Umm Salamah does not indicate that the Najashi embraced Islam.
This is from one angle. From another angle, it is as if those who say that the Najashi for whom the Messenger prayed is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) dispatched the Muhajireen, and the Najashi to whom a letter was sent inviting him to Islam; it is as if they are not familiar with the hadith of Anas b. Malik, which was reported by Muslim in his Sahih; “That the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
As for the two letters mentioned by Muhammad Hamidullah in his book, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era.’ They state that the Najashi wrote a letter to the Messenger (saw) in which he states his conversion to Islam and his readiness to come to the Messenger (saw) if he orders him to do so; and that he has sent his son Arha b. al-Asham b. Abhar, and the letter was sent when the Messenger (saw) was in Makkah. As for the second letter, it was mentioned that the Najashi sent it with the Sahabah returning from Habashah whilst he (saw) was in Madinah.
There had been no mention of these two letters in the sound books of hadith. The author of, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era’, mentioned that he took these documents from the history books like Tabari, Qalqashandi, Ibn Kathir and others. He did not mention that he took any of them from the books of hadith. The books of history are not authentic, because they are not concerned with the transmission of the reports like the hadith books. They gather all the reports like the one who gathers wood at night, he does not know whether his hand is falling upon a branch or a snake. Hence, these two letters are of no value, not to mention their contradiction with the hadith of Anas as reported by Muslim, and the narration of Umm Salamah in her talk about Najashi, and the Muhajireen in Habashah, of whom the last was Ja’far, who did not mention that an-Najashi embraced Islam, though Ja’far returned to the Rasool (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Khaybar, and after the Rasool (saw) sent the letters to the Kings and princes. Therefore, those two letters are not correct, and deducing them is not correct as well, so they are rejected. From all of this, it is clear the Najashi who embraced Islam, and on whom the Rasool (saw) made funeral prayer is not the same Najashi to whom the Muhajireen emigrated. He is also not the same Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent a letter to, inviting him to Islam, between the end of the sixth year of Hijrah and the beginning of the seventh year, with Amru b. Umayyah ad-Damri. He is rather the Najashi who assumed the power in Habashah after the death of the Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam.
The Najashi who embraced Islam had taken power in the seventh year. This is because the Messenger (saw) had sent his messengers to the kings and rulers, including the Najashi, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyah. This was at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, in the month of the Zhul Qa’dah. This Najashi would have died in the seventh year, in which the Najashi who had embraced Islam assumed power, and he was the one for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Salatul Janazah, and whose death was before the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year of the Hijrah, as mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah’.
Hence the period of time between his assuming power, and conversion, and his death was a short time. He secretly embcraced Islam and no one knew of his conversion, not even the Messenger (saw). The Messenger (saw) was informed by revelation about his death and conversion, on the day that he died, as indicated by the wording of the six ahadith in Bukhari, which he reported about his death. The short period of time that he spent as a Muslim before he died did not enable him to know the rules of Islam. The Prophet’s (saw) lack of knowledge of this meant that he did not write to him about what he should do.
That is why this cannot be used as an evidence for those who permit participation in a kufr government, which rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Their argument is therefore invalidated.
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi, who had embraced Islam, to rule by the law of kufr?
The one who carries Islam truthfully, and works with sincerity to re-establish it in ruling and life, whether as an individual or group, is not able to participate in any kufr rule, while claiming that he is working to destroy it. This is because participating in a kufr rule, which applies the systems and laws of kufr, is consolidation of the systems of kufr and not destruction of them. The proof that may be brought, to justify participation in a kufr rule, is nothing but self-deception, before deception to Allah (swt) and the believers. Especially when that proof is in conflict with the Shar’ee evidences, which are definite in meaning and authenticity.
It is indeed a severe test and a great sin, for the da’wah carrier to resort to taking a maslahah (interest), which his mind deduces, but the Shar’a did not consider, as an evidence to justify for himself his opposition to the text that is definite in meaning and authenticity. Or for him to resort to something not amounting to be a shubhat ad-daleel (semblance of an evidence), in order to justify participation in a kufr rule, which governs by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed; even though participation in kufr rule contradicts the evidences that are definite in meaning and authenticity. These evidences oblige ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.
They take the story of an-Najashi - whose death the Messenger (saw) announced to the Sahabah the day he died and then prayed Salatul Janazah for him - as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. They take the view that the Najashi had embraced Islam in the time of the Messenger (saw) and continued to rule by the system that he used to rule with before he had embraced Islam, even though it was a non-Islamic system. To prove this, they cite six ahadith, reported by al-Bukhari, relating to Najashi’s death and the prayer that was performed for him. Three of them have been narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari and the other three by Abu Hurayra. Even though these six evidences cannot stand up as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by kufr systems and laws. The following points will explain this matter.
1- When Bukhari reported these ahadith, he placed five of them under the heading ‘Bab mawt an-najashi’ (Chapter on the death of an-Najashi) and he reported the sixth in ‘bab al-janaaiz’ (Chapter of funeral prayers). All six ahadith are to do with the death of an-Najashi, the Messenger’s (saw) informing of the Sahabah about his death, that he was a pious man, and he was their brother, then he (saw) ordered them to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, and to pray with him the funeral prayer for an-Najashi. These indicate that he was a Muslim.
2- Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani, in his book ‘Fathul Baari’ (commentary on the Sahih of Bukhari), commented on Bukhari’s report (on the incident) under the title ‘death of an-Najashi’ rather than his report on his conversion to Islam. He said; “There was confusion that al-Bukhari did not report about his (ie an-Najashi) conversion to Islam, which is its true place, and instead he reported his death. This was because the story related to his embrace of Islam was not proved to him, while it is explicit in his death. So he reported his death story to understand that he (an-Najashi) embraced Islam from the prayer of janazah on him.”
3- The wording of the ahadith reported by al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger (saw) knew of Najashi’s death and his embracing of Islam on the day of his death via revelation. It also indicates that the Sahabah did not know of his embracing of Islam and his death, except when the Messenger (saw) informed them of it. Thus, in the hadith of Jaabir, he said; “The Messenger (saw) said when the Najashi died: ‘Today a pious man has died. So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah.’” In the hadith of Abu Hurayra, it mentioned that; “The Rasool of Allah (saw) informed them of the death of Najashi, the ruler of Habasha, on the day that he died.” This indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of the Najashi’s death and embracing of Islam via revelation on the day that he died. The Messenger’s (saw) saying to to the Sahabah, as narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah, that, “Today a pious man has died”, and, “So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah”, indicates that they had not known of his embracing Islam, because if they had known that before, there would have been no need for the Messenger (saw) to use such expressions ‘a pious man’, ‘your brother’. This is because he (saw) did not use such expressions when he used to call them to the funeral prayer when one of the Sahabah died.
4- These ahadith indicate that the Najashi had embraced Islam shortly before his death, but they did not explain when he embraced Islam. The wording indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of his death and embracing of Islam through revelation on the day he died, as mentioned before. There is not any authentic report that mentions that the Messenger (saw) was informed of his embracing of Islam at any other instance.
5- These six ahadith contain nothing to indicate that the Najashi, whose death the Messenger (saw) informed the Sahabah of, was the same Najashi who was the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) when the Muslims migrated to it. As well, there is nothing to indicate that he is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter in which he invited him to Islam. This is because the word ‘Najashi’ is not a proper noun for a specific person. Rather it is a laqab (title) given to every ruler who ruled Habashah, as reported by an-Nawawi in the second volume of his book ‘Sharh Sahih Muslim’ and as reported by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani in the third volume of his book ‘Al-Isaabah.’
6- In volume twelve of Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi commented that the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyyah, was not the Najashi for whom the prophet (saw) prayed the Janazah. The text of the hadith is as follows; “Narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant, inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
From this hadith it becomes clear that the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) prayed is not the Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated, in order to live under his protection, and he is not the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) wrote a letter in the sixth year of the Hijrah inviting him to Islam. Rather he is the Najashi who came to power after the death of the Najashi to whom the Prophet (saw) sent a letter with ‘Amr b. Umayyah ad-Damri inviting him to Islam. He did not respond and did not embrace Islam, because if he had responded and embraced Islam, the Messenger (saw) would have informed the Sahabah of this and prayed for him, and Ja’far b. Abi Taalib and the immigrants would have known about his conversion. They returned to the Messenger (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Makkah ie after the Messenger (saw) had sent the letter to the Najashi. If he had embraced Islam, then it would have been a cause for reverbation and celebration amongst the Muslims, especially after the conquest of Khaybar. The Messenger (saw) would then have informed them of his conversion, and not restricted his saying regarding the coming of Ja’far; “I do not know what gives me more joy; the conquest of Khaybar or the arrival of Ja’far.” [Sira of Ibn Hisham]. He should have added: ‘Or by the conversion of Najashi.’ But he did not mention Najashi in this hadith, even though the situation would have necessitated it, if he had responded to his (saw) da’wah and embraced Islam.
7- Those who took the opinion that the Najashi for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Janazah prayer is the same Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated and entered into his protection, and the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah; they mistakenly took this view, because the Najashi to whom the Muslims made hijrah was the one whom the Messenger (saw) commended, praised and described to those who wished to emigrate to him by saying: “He is a King, under whom no one is oppressed, and his land is a land of truth.” [Ibn Hisham]. This is because he gave the best protection for those who migrated to him from the Muslims, and gave them security, so they were able to worship Allah (swt) not fearing anyone. He also refused to hand them over to the two delegates of the Quraysh who demanded this, against the wishes of his patriachs. He prevented them from this, protected them, and told them both; “You are safe in my land and whoever abused you will be fined (punished).” It is also because of his comment on Ja’far’s answer, when he asked him about what the Messenger (saw) had brought; “Indeed this matter and what ‘Isa has brought emanate from the one lamp”, beside his comment on Ja’far’s answer on the second day, when he asked him about their view of ‘Isa, where he took a stick from the ground and said; “By Allah, Isa bin Maryam did not exceed what you said more than (the width of) this stick” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. From all this, they thought that he had embraced Islam even though the Messenger (saw) had not announced his embracing it. Similarly, Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet (saw) who was one of the immigrants to Habashah, did not mention that he had embraced Islam, when she talked about him and about what happened to them in the land of Habashah, when she said; “When we arrived in the land of Habashah, we had the best neighbour; The Najashi. We felt safe in regards of our deen, worshipped Allah (swt) without being harmed and did not hear anything we might hate…” She also said; “By Allah, we were in such a state, until a man emerged in the Habashah who challenged his authority.” She said; “We did not ever know a sadness such as happened to us at that time, fearing that man might defeat the Najashi, and hence another man might come who does not recognise of our right, as the Najashi did.” She said; “After Allah gave victory to the Najashi against his enemy, and strengthened him in his land, by Allah, we never knew a delight as we had then.” “The Najashi returned (from the battlefield) when Allah destroyed his enemy and strengthened him in his land, and the affair of al-Habashah put in good order. So we remained in his neighbourhood, in the best home until we arrived to the Rasool of Allah (saw) while he was in Makkah.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. This hadith of Umm Salamah does not indicate that the Najashi embraced Islam.
This is from one angle. From another angle, it is as if those who say that the Najashi for whom the Messenger prayed is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) dispatched the Muhajireen, and the Najashi to whom a letter was sent inviting him to Islam; it is as if they are not familiar with the hadith of Anas b. Malik, which was reported by Muslim in his Sahih; “That the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
As for the two letters mentioned by Muhammad Hamidullah in his book, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era.’ They state that the Najashi wrote a letter to the Messenger (saw) in which he states his conversion to Islam and his readiness to come to the Messenger (saw) if he orders him to do so; and that he has sent his son Arha b. al-Asham b. Abhar, and the letter was sent when the Messenger (saw) was in Makkah. As for the second letter, it was mentioned that the Najashi sent it with the Sahabah returning from Habashah whilst he (saw) was in Madinah.
There had been no mention of these two letters in the sound books of hadith. The author of, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era’, mentioned that he took these documents from the history books like Tabari, Qalqashandi, Ibn Kathir and others. He did not mention that he took any of them from the books of hadith. The books of history are not authentic, because they are not concerned with the transmission of the reports like the hadith books. They gather all the reports like the one who gathers wood at night, he does not know whether his hand is falling upon a branch or a snake. Hence, these two letters are of no value, not to mention their contradiction with the hadith of Anas as reported by Muslim, and the narration of Umm Salamah in her talk about Najashi, and the Muhajireen in Habashah, of whom the last was Ja’far, who did not mention that an-Najashi embraced Islam, though Ja’far returned to the Rasool (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Khaybar, and after the Rasool (saw) sent the letters to the Kings and princes. Therefore, those two letters are not correct, and deducing them is not correct as well, so they are rejected. From all of this, it is clear the Najashi who embraced Islam, and on whom the Rasool (saw) made funeral prayer is not the same Najashi to whom the Muhajireen emigrated. He is also not the same Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent a letter to, inviting him to Islam, between the end of the sixth year of Hijrah and the beginning of the seventh year, with Amru b. Umayyah ad-Damri. He is rather the Najashi who assumed the power in Habashah after the death of the Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam.
The Najashi who embraced Islam had taken power in the seventh year. This is because the Messenger (saw) had sent his messengers to the kings and rulers, including the Najashi, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyah. This was at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, in the month of the Zhul Qa’dah. This Najashi would have died in the seventh year, in which the Najashi who had embraced Islam assumed power, and he was the one for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Salatul Janazah, and whose death was before the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year of the Hijrah, as mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah’.
Hence the period of time between his assuming power, and conversion, and his death was a short time. He secretly embcraced Islam and no one knew of his conversion, not even the Messenger (saw). The Messenger (saw) was informed by revelation about his death and conversion, on the day that he died, as indicated by the wording of the six ahadith in Bukhari, which he reported about his death. The short period of time that he spent as a Muslim before he died did not enable him to know the rules of Islam. The Prophet’s (saw) lack of knowledge of this meant that he did not write to him about what he should do.
That is why this cannot be used as an evidence for those who permit participation in a kufr government, which rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Their argument is therefore invalidated.
Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) and ruling within a kufr system
The following is a chapter from the book 'The Da'wah to Islam' by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud which can be downloaded from http://www.khilafah.com/images/images/DawahToIslm.pdf
Regarding Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), they say that the society in which he lived was a Jaahili society, in which the creed of Shirk was dominant. In that society, the moral corruption was widespread and Sayyiduna Yusuf was open to temptation and injustice in it to the extent that the people decided to imprison him when they saw the signs of his innocence. The King took him out of the prison when he realised how well Yusuf (as) could interpret dreams, and realised Yusuf’s honesty. So the King chose him and kept him close. So Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) asked the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and so the King accepted his request. So Yusuf assumed the responsibility of a ministry in a Jaahili rule and system, which was known to contradict the Sharee’ah of Bani Israel. In terms of implementation, Sayyiduna Yusuf was on the ‘deen (system) of the King’, ie his authority and rule, to the extent that he needed to use the trick of referring to the law of Ya’qub in order to keep his brother with him. This was when he planned a trick for his brother, by accusing him of (committing) theft, because the thief is enslaved according to the Sharee’ah Ya’qub.
They add to this by saying that it should not be said that this is specific to Sayyiduna Yusuf, because specification requires evidence. This is because in origin anything mentioned regarding the Prophets and their guidance is intended to be emulated and followed.
In addition they say that nobody should claim that this is from the Shar’a of those before us, because the subject of ruling is not from the furu’ (branches) of the Sharee’ah over which there may be differences in the laws, rather it is from the Usul, which are agreed upon. This is also because Sayyiduna Yusuf acknowledged that, “The Command is for none but Allah.” [TMQ 12:40], and despite his acknowledgement, he still participated in ruling.
The one who studies the ayaat from Surah Yusuf, which relate to this subject, will notice that this opinion, that permits participation in the systems of kufr, is based on the two following ayaat; “He could not take his brother by the deen (law) of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76], and; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land.’” [TMQ 12:55]. They explained them in a manner that agrees with their opinion. They forgot all the principles upon which Islam is built that are contrary to their opinion, and ignored the ayaat that contradicted this understanding. They even dismissed the subject of the infallibility of the Prophets. If their understanding of these two ayaat collapsed, then everything they built on the subject of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) collapses.
The Prophets are the pure ones of Allah (swt) from His creation and His chosen ones. He selects them to spread His deen. They are the example and model for their people. They are the true examples of subservience and adherence, since they undertook His command in the best way. Allah (swt) has protected them from sins and temptations, and made them firm on the truth and granted them His Help. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) is from this chosen group. Allah (swt) has praised him and given him a brilliant commendation in more than one ayah. He (swt) said; “Thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of dreams and perfect His favour on you…” [TMQ 12:6]. He (swt) said; “And when he (Yusuf) attained his full manhood, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, thus we reward the Muhsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:22]. He (swt) said; “Thus it was, that We might turn away from him evil and illegal sexual intercourse. Surely he was one of Our chosen, guided slaves.” [TMQ 12:24]. He (swt) said; “Thus did We establish Yusuf in the land, to take possession therein, as when or where he likes. We bestow of Our Mercy on whom We please, and We make not to be lost the reward of the Muhsinoon (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:56]
He was a da’ee (carrier of da’wah) to Allah (swt) of the highest type. The Qur’an mentions that when his companions in prison asked him about the interpretation of their dreams he said; “Are many different lords (gods) better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, but only names that you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]
He was chaste, bound by Allah (swt) and seeking protection with Him. So Allah (swt) turned him away from the tricks of women and from the tricks of al-Aziz’s wife, whose statement has been mentioned by the Qur’an; “And I did seek to seduce him, but he refused. And now if he refuses to obey my order, he shall certainly be cast into prison, and will be one of those who are disgraced. He said: ‘O my Lord! Prison is more to my liking than that to which they invite me. Unless You turn away their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant.’ So his Lord answered his invocation and turned away from him their plot. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” [TMQ 12:32-34]. The people testified to his chastity, goodness and honesty. His two companions in prison said to him; “Inform us of the interpretation of this, verily, we think you are one of the Mushsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:36]. One of the two companions, who was freed after the King saw his dream, said to Yusuf: “O Yusuf, the man of truth!” [TMQ 12:46]. After he refused to come out of prison unless his innocence was manifest, the women said; “The women said: ‘Allah forbid! No evil know we against him!’ The wife of Al-Aziz said: ‘Now the truth is manifest (to all), it was I who sought to seduce him, and he is surely of the truthful.’” [TMQ 12:51]. The King, impressed by him, said; “Bring him to me that I may attach him to my person.” [TMQ 12:54]. His brothers said, after he decided to take his brother: “So take one of us in his place. Indeed we think that you are one of the Muhsinuun (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:78]. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) acknowledged that what Allah (swt) had favoured him with, was because of his Taqwa and steadfastness, in obedience and his staying away from sins. He said; “He said: ‘I am Yusuf, and this is my brother. Allah has indeed been gracious to us. Verily, he who fears Allah with obedience to Him, and is patient, then surely, Allah makes not the reward of the Musinoon (good-doers) to be lost.’” [TMQ 12:90]
How is it possible for some Muslims to accuse someone of such status to whom Allah (swt) bears witness, and who was not accused by anyone that met him? This is despite there is nothing, not even a single indication in the Qur’an - that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King. There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except the one that is; “They (Yusuf’s brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime).’” [TMQ 12:75]. This rule was according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). There is no indication to any knowledge that he ruled by something other than what Allah (swt) had revealed. Their suspicious argument has come from the following ayah: “He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76]. This ayah, when it is explained with the correct tafseer (interpretation), then this shubhah (suspicion) is removed and their claims fall apart.
The ayah was ambiguous to the advocates of this approach, so they explained it in a way that suits their position. So their explanation was as follows.
After the famine years occurred, people started to come to Yusuf (as) from everywhere to give them something from the crops that he had saved by his management, and whose distribution the King had charged him with. His brothers came, and he recognised them while they did not recognise him. He told his younger brother that he was his brother, so that he would not be grieved. He planned a trick for his brothers, and put the siqayah (drinking vessel) in the saddle of his brother’s camel, without anybody noticing. So he said that he had lost it, and somebody announced that the owners of the camel caravan had stolen. They assigned one camel load for the one who finds it. The brothers of Yusuf (as) rejected the accusation with great vehemence. Those who supervised the distribution from amongst the aides of Yusuf (as), said; “What then shall be the penalty of him, if you are (proved to be) liars.” [TMQ 12:74]. Yusuf’s brothers said; “The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held (as a bondman) for the atonement.” [TMQ 12:75], which means the thief would be taken as a bondsman (enslaved). This was in accordance with the Sharee’ah (law) of Ya’qub (as). So Yusuf (as) started to search their baggage before his younger brother’s baggage. He then brought it out of his younger brother’s baggage, so his penalty was to be taken as a bondsman and enslaved. Then came the ayah that said about Sayyiduna Yusuf (as); “He could not take his brother by the law of the King.” [TMQ 12:76]. Some of them explained it to mean the Sharee’ah (law) and Nizam (system) of the King. This meant that the King in Egypt had a Sharee’ah and a system, and Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) governed with the Sharee’ah and system of this King. In this problem, he planned a trick by which he could keep his brother at his side. So he resorted to a polite plot, to make them pronounce themselves the penalty by which they will be accounted. He did not tell them that the penalty of the thief according to the law of the King is such and such. Rather he made them pronounce the verdict according to the law of Ya’qub, so as to keep his brother with him.
The explanation of this ayah in this manner has made them come out with this understanding.
If we refer to the word ‘deen’ in the Arabic, we find it of the common words, which carry more than one meaning. In the dictionary Lisan al-Arab (the arab tongue), it states that, ‘deen’ means the coercion and obedience. So ‘dintuhum fa danoo’ means ‘I coerced them, so they obeyed.’ Deen also means the reward and the prize. You say ‘dintuhu for his action deenun’ to mean ‘I rewarded him.’ Also ‘Youm al-deen’ means the ‘day of recompense.’ Deen also means the accounting, as in His (swt) saying; “The Owner of Youm al-deen.” [TMQ 1:3] Deen also means Sharee’ah and Sultan, as in His (swt) saying; “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (persecution) and the deen will in its entirety be for Allah.” [TMQ 8:39]. Deen means humiliation and enslavement, and the ‘madeen’ is the slave, al-madeenah is the possessed nation, as in His (swt) saying, “Are we Madeenoon?” [TMQ 37:53], meaning ‘owned’. The same as in His (swt) saying, “Then why do you not – if you are not madeeneen – bring it (the soul) back, if you are truthful?” [TMQ 56:86-87]. ‘Madeeneen’ here means owned.
There are other meanings for this word ‘deen’.
So, which of these meanings does Allah (swt) intend in this ayah? Selecting any one of these meanings needs a qareena (indication) that makes us take that specific meaning. This exposes the one who takes the meaning that suits him and suits his view; he appoints his whims as a judge over the Shar’a. While the one who takes the meaning that is regulated, and restricted with Shar’ee qara’in (indications) that indicate it, is appointing the Shar’a as a judge, and abides by the command of his Lord. So which of these meanings is intended?
If we say the meaning intended from the word deen is Sharee’ah, we find that the Shar’ee indications prevent this understanding, if it leads to Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) participating (in ruling) with kufr. This is haraam for the Prophets and believers, and in conflict with the nature of the Message, which is established on making worship and servitude for Allah (swt) alone, and the right of legislation is only for Him. He (swt) says; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying): Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)], so worship Me (Alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25]. Hence, it was Yusuf (as), who used to say to the people; “The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]. It is impossible that he would go against them in this matter and accept the rule of different gods. Similar to this situation, we find Sayyiduna Shu’ayb (as) saying to his people: “I wish not, in contradiction to you, to do that which I forbid you. I only desire to do good so far as I am able, to the best of my power. And my guidance cannot come except from Allah, in Him I trust and unto Him I repent.” [TMQ 11:88]. The tafseer of this ayah, according to al-Qurtubi, is; I do not forbid you from something I commit myself, just as I do not leave a matter that I have commanded you to do.
If we say that the intended meaning of the word ‘deen’ is enslavement, and his brother would become ‘madeenan’ ie an unowned slave; this meaning would completely conform with what was previously mentioned in the ayah about the statement of Yusuf’s (as) brothers regarding the fact that a thief is enslaved. Thus, the ayah would mean; He could not take his brother, by being enslaved by the King, ie by making him madeen (an owned slave) to him, except if Allah (swt) willed. This meaning is closest to the truth. There is no Shar’ee indication that prevents such a meaning. Rather it fits with what came before it in the ayah, and it confirms that Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) was one of the muhsineen (those who do good), and mukhliseen (sincere to Allah), as Allah mentioned. It also confirms what the people bore witness to.
Therefore, a tafseer that conflicts with the infallibility of the Prophets, their immunity from sin, or implies that they say what they do not do, is rejected.
As for the tafseer of Sayyiduna Yusuf’s statement to the King; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55], and taking it to mean that he requested the treasury ministry, or ministry of finance; and that during his appointment to this position, he did not apply the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as), but rather the system of the King, which was not based on justice. This is a huge aberration and a clear deviation from the truth. It is important that we acquaint ourselves a number of issues in order to shed light on the matter.
* The reality of ruling in that period was that it was monarchical. In history, the monarchical rule has taken two form:
1 - The authoritarian system of monarchy, where the King rules by his own order, and opinion. Whatever he deems fit the people must follow, and no one can change his judgement. The legislative, executive and judicial authorities all come under his control. He appoints his assistants and removes them whenever he wants. He may select them due to their loyalty or closeness to him, or because of their sound judgement or good planning. It is enough for these assistants to be loyal and obedient in order to be given a free reign; so they will rule according to their own orders and be despotic in their opinion. Thus each becomes a King on a reduced scale.
2 - Monarchy with restricted authority. The King in this system became an image rather than a real King; this is where his absolute powers have been stripped from him. The sovereignty in this system lies with the constitution and canons, and not the King. Legislative bodies undertake the enactment of laws, instead of the King. There are also executive bodies, which implement the constitution and canons instead of the King. There are also judicial bodies, which settle disputes and resolve conflicts between people, instead of the King. This form of monarchy became prevalent after the idea of Democracy spread. This is the restricted (constitutional) monarchy. Which of these two forms was the monarchy system adopted in Egypt, in the time of Yusuf (as)?
No one can imagine that the King of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (as) was bound to a constitution and system. The expression ‘deen al-malik’ does not mean what they claim, that is the law of the King. The opinion that sees an analogy between the system of monarchy at the time of Yusuf (as) with the systems of today that control the actions of the rulers, is an opinion that deviated from the correct opinion, and it is an erroneous analogy.
Sayyiduna Yusuf’s request to the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and the King’s acceptance of his request does not mean this request had anything to do with ruling. What was mentioned by the Qur’an was restricted to the subject of dreams and not to anything else. It relates to the production of crops, the years of harvest and the years of drought and what should be done regarding them. Thus, he ordered Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) to take up the responsibility of storing the flour, and organise the distribution in the years of harvest so as to accommodate for the years of drought, without committing excess in his task or betraying the trust that had been given to him. This is a difficult task, which cannot be done except by someone competent, trustworthy, careful and knowledgeable, like Yusuf (as). What took place between Yusuf (as) and his brothers was specifically related to this subject. We are not allowed to deviate from this context or expand the scope Sayyidina Yusuf’s responsibility. We are not entitled to say that his task related to seizing wealth and spending it on the King’s entourage, family, army or citizens, and that this must have taken place according to the system of the King and not the Shar’eeah of Ya’qub (as). The expansion of the text to encompass such details requires a daleel.
It seems that the King was impressed by the sound judgment of Yusuf (as) and his ability to outweigh things and his integrity. This is what made the King draw Yusuf (as) close to him and give him the authority to manage the great task, that had preoccupied his mind ever since he saw his dream. So it was important that Yusuf (as) be given the opportunity to do this without interference from anyone else.
One can see that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not just interpret the dream of the King. Rather he offered him the solution and the necessary organisation. This allowed the King to gain confidence in Yusuf’s ability to look after the stores, and to give him a free reign in doing this. The King did not say to Yusuf (as) that he had a Sharee’ah or a system according to which Yusuf (as) must proceed. Rather the King accepted Yusuf’s (as) interpretation of his dream and his solution. Consequently the King gave him the job of storing and distributing the harvest as he saw fit.
It was inevitable that after the years of drought, Yusuf (as) would be the person to whom the people would turn to save them from hunger. It was also inevitable that his fame would spread far and wide, due to his justice and fair distribution. This strengthened his position with the King and made him even closer to him. Perhaps this is what enabled him to move from being the Aziz, as his brothers addressed him; “O ruler of the land (O Aziz).” [TMQ 12:88], to being the King after his parents came from the desert. He made du’a to his Lord and said; “My Lord! You have indeed bestowed on me of the sovereignty…” [TMQ 12:101]; and then Allah (swt) said; “And he raised his parents to the throne…” [TMQ 12:100], which means that the authority was given to him eventually.
The only law the Qur’an mentions that Yusuf (as) implemented, was to take his brother as a slave according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). So why did he not take from the system of the King for the violation, if the King had a fixed and specific system?
It is not possible to imagine that Sayyidina Yusuf (as) would commit any violation of the Sharee’ah. That is because he is ma’sum (infallible) and his Lord has described him as muhsin (good), sincere and pious. He is the one who preferred prison to seduction. He was the one who used to give da’wah in prison. He was the one who refused to leave prison without proving his innocence. He was the one who, due to his honesty and integrity, won the admiration of the kuffar of his society, from the wife of the Aziz, to the women of the town, his two companions in prison, the King, and even his brothers, before they discovered his identity.
It is worth noting that the tafseer of the situation of Sayyidina Yusuf (as) and the State of the King are all tafseer zanni (speculative interpretation). This is regardless of whatever angle they may have come from. So whether the King embraced Islam or remained a disbeliever, or whether the authority had been passed onto Yusuf owing to the death of the King or his resignation, or if Yusuf (as) became Aziz after the removal or death of the previous Aziz; the explanation of His (swt) saying, “He could not have taken his brother according to the King’s law.” [TMQ 12:76], or the interpretation of His (swt) saying, “Set me over the store houses of the land…” [TMQ 12:55]; the answers to all of these are speculative interpretations only. This is because the Qur’an did not provide us with the necessary details to answer them definitively. Furthermore, their details are not necessary for us to follow as legislation. What we have mentioned is also no exception to this, since it is speculative like the other explanations. However, it is different from other opinions in the sense that it is in harmony with what befits the Prophets in terms of Taqwa and Imaan, and does not contradict the infallibility of the Prophets that is established in the fundamentals of the deen. How much further can an explanation be from the truth when it contradicts a definite statement uttered by the tongue of Yusuf (as) himself, when he rejected others to follow the ‘Aqeedah of shirk, and to leave the exclusive reference to Allah (swt) for judgment, as we have seen previously? By proceeding in this manner, where we clarify the situation of Yusuf (as), we do not wish to bring another opinion to support the prohibition of participating in kufr systems. Our view is the Hukm of the Shar’a and not a speculative Shar’a rule. It is definite in meaning and authenticity.
Someone might say that Yusuf (as) used to rule by the law of the King by permission of Allah (swt) and so did not go against his Lord. The answer is that either this permission was for Sayyiduna Yusuf specifically, or it was a general permission for all, i.e. ruling by kufr laws was lawful at the time.
If it is a specific permission for Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), then it is not allowed for anyone else to act upon this permission. Therefore, it is not for us to follow or cite this as proof.
In the second case, if it had been lawful for their time, then it would come to us being the law (Shar’a) of those who came before us. So the question becomes, can the Shar’a of those who came before us be a Shar’a for us? A group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down the following principle; “the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us”, citing as proof many texts that show that what Muhammad (saw) brought has completely abrogated the previous laws and abrogated some parts of it in the details to emphasize this point. If we adopt the opinion of this group of scholars, then it would not be allowed for us to follow or cite as proof the situation of Yusuf (as) or any other Prophet. Another group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down another principle; “the Shar’a of before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated.” Those scholars also have their juristic reasoning. They say that if the previous laws are not to have any use for us, then the Qur’an would not have mentioned them. Those scholars say that what Muhammad (saw) brought did not abrogate everything that came before us all at once. They say that what is mentioned of the laws of the previous Prophets in the Qur’an and the Sunnah are recognized as a law for us; except what the Qur’an abrogated from these laws, and replaced with new ones.
When we apply this principle on this subject matter, what do we find? In our Sharee’ah, are there texts that prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed? Has anything been mentioned in what the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw) or the Sharee’ah that the Qur’an brought, which warns us of deviating a hairbreadth from this Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw)?
Indeed, the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw) has forbidden us from referring to anything other than it for solving our disputes. It forbade us, in a definite manner, to take any rule from the rules of kufr and jahiliyyah. If it is claimed that this was lawful in the time of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), we say to those who claim it that even if you assume that it was lawful then, it is certainly forbidden (abrogated) in the Sharee’ah of the Qur’an now.
The view that ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is from the Usul (principles) and not from the branches, is an incorrect view. That is because the place of the beliefs is the heart, and the place of the Sharee’ah rules is the limbs. The ‘Aqeedah represents the basis of the Sharee’ah rules whilst the rules are the fruits of the ‘Aqeedah.
The Shar’ee rule related to the actions of the servant has two aspects.
1 - The intellectual and creedal aspect which must be accepted.
In this aspect it is related to the ‘Aqeedah. Non-acceptance of it may lead to disbelief or sin according to whether it is qat’i (decisive) or zanni (speculative).
2 - The aspect that is practical, relating to execution.
Thus, the Salah is fard and must be accepted as fard. Not accepting it as a fard leads to kufr (disbelief).
The Salah is fard and must be undertaken as a fard; not undertaking it as a fard leads to sin.
Alcohol is haraam and its prohibition must be accepted; saying it is permissible will lead to kufr.
Alcohol is haraam and drinking it is forbidden. Drinking alcohol will lead to sin.
In the same way, ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is fard. Its acceptance is linked to Imaan owing to the definite text that deals with this subject. As for its execution, it is Taa’ah (obedience) and not to execute it is a ma’siyah (sin). So the one who does not rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed is charged with kufr if he does not believe in ruling by Allah’s revelations or if he rejects it. He will be committing a sin (which excludes kufr) if he accepts it but does not apply it. Therefore, the statement that ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is from the agreed Usul refers to the first aspect. This is correct. As for the second aspect (the practical aspect) it is related to the Sharee’ah and its application. In other words, it relates to the furoo’ (branches) and not the Usul (the foundations). So from this perspective it becomes part of the issue of whether it is from the Shar’a before us or not.
From this angle we have established that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not participate in ruling, and it is not allowed to explain this situation in this way. The statements of the people who claim otherwise are rejected, even from their own arguments. This is because the ‘ulema had two opinions regarding the principle of Shar’a man qablana (Shar’a that came before us). One opinion says that the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us. So according to this understanding, the permission to participate in the jaahili system is rejected. The second opinion says that the Shar’a of those before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated. Many ayaat, the ‘Aqeedah, the actions of the Messenger (saw)—who showed us the method of how to establish the ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed—and all of the principles of ruling, indicated that it is not allowed to participate in kufr systems. Rather, Islam in its totality rejects such an understanding. In other words, if participating in jaahili systems was lawful in the Shar’a before us, then it is something our Shar’a has abrogated, due to the numerous evidences that prohibit it.
The view that everything mentioned from the lives of the Prophets and their guidance, is meant to be emulated and followed, needs explanation.
All the Prophets share in the matter of the ‘Aqeedah. All of them invited people to the belief in Allah, al-Waahid (the One), al-Khaaliq (the Creator) and al-Mudabbir (the organizer of affairs). They invited people to the belief in the angels, books, messengers and the Last Day. He (swt) said; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying): ‘Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)]’, so worship Me (alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25]
They also share in the matter of conveyance, suffering for the sake of the da’wah, its harms and hardships, having sabr (patience) for Allah’s sake and sacrifice in His Path. He (swt) said: “Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad [saw]), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before) you.” [6:34]. He (swt) said; “Nothing is said to you (O Muhammad [saw]) except what was said to the Messengers before you.” [TMQ 41:43]
They shared in inviting their people to adherence and obedience. He (swt) said: “We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64]
They shared in being rejected by their people and the ridiculing of their da’wah. He (swt) said; “Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at him.” [TMQ 36:30]. And He (swt) said; “And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-14]
They share in the fact that Allah (swt) has given them the victory in the end. He (swt) said; “(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah).” [TMQ 12:110]
In this manner all of the da’waat (messages) used have many things in common, some of which we have mentioned. The position assumed by those before has been mentioned. Allah (swt) mentioned them to us so that we may learn from them, reflect and take admonition from those things that strengthen our Imaan, strengthen our resolve, increase us in patience. They also assure us that the chain of the da’wah is the same in its ‘Aqeedah, its call to adhere to the minhaj (way) of the All-Knowing and All-Informed, and its outcome. The ayaat have come to illuminate the path of the da’wah for the Muslims and to inform them about the nature of people’s opposition, the intensification of hostilities between kufr and Imaan, and the struggle that will never stop. It also reminded us of the walaa’ (loyalty) to Allah (swt) and being baraa’ (free) from shirk, the divine intervention after the test of Imaan and many other matters apart from those we have mentioned.
However, the lives of the Prophets are followed in the stances they assumed. They are not followed in legislation. This is because Allah (swt) has given a different system for every Prophet. He (swt) said; “For each (prophet), We made a Shar’a and a minhaj (way).” [TMQ 5:48]. This is because every prophet was sent to his people whilst the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to all of the people. His Message was the final message. Allah (swt) ordered the followers of other religions to follow it and to leave what they had been following. He (swt) said; “Truly, the deen with Allah is Islam.” [TMQ 3:19], and He (swt) said; “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” [TMQ 3:85], and He (swt) said; “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad [saw]) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it (old Scriptures) and dominating over it.” [TMQ 5:48]
Furthermore, the nature of the Message revealed to Sayyiduna Muhammad differs from others, in that it is final and comprehensive. The Islamic State represents one of its most important parts, since it is considered the Shar’eeah method to protect, apply and propagate Islam. With the other Prophets we find that their da’wah was specific to a people and came specifically for their people, to the exclusion of others. This means their da’wah was restricted to a specific time and place. This is contrary to Islam whose Shar’eeah rules are suitable for all times and places. This difference does not permit analogy between Islam and anything else. This leaves the Muslims to restrict themselves to adopting from Islam only, because its rules are interlinked in a manner that fits to its nature. Let us take for example the Message of Sayyiduna ‘Isa. It is clearly different from the Message of Sayyiduna Muhammad, since it is a moral and spiritual message, which does not contain any call for the establishment of a State. It is also specific to Bani Israel. So how can the Shar’eeah rules be compared?
We regret that we have to discuss matters that are obvious in the deen. It indicates the level to which the du’aa today have descended. All we can say is what the Noble Qur’an said to Sayyiduna Muhammad (saw); “Say: ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me…’” [TMQ 12:108]
“He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76]
“(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55]
“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying):’Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)] worship Me (Alone an none else).’” [TMQ 21:25]
“Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad [saw]), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before) you.” [TMQ 6:34]
“We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64]
“Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at them.” [TMQ 36:30]
“And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to your religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-15]
“(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah.” [TMQ 12:110]
Regarding Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), they say that the society in which he lived was a Jaahili society, in which the creed of Shirk was dominant. In that society, the moral corruption was widespread and Sayyiduna Yusuf was open to temptation and injustice in it to the extent that the people decided to imprison him when they saw the signs of his innocence. The King took him out of the prison when he realised how well Yusuf (as) could interpret dreams, and realised Yusuf’s honesty. So the King chose him and kept him close. So Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) asked the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and so the King accepted his request. So Yusuf assumed the responsibility of a ministry in a Jaahili rule and system, which was known to contradict the Sharee’ah of Bani Israel. In terms of implementation, Sayyiduna Yusuf was on the ‘deen (system) of the King’, ie his authority and rule, to the extent that he needed to use the trick of referring to the law of Ya’qub in order to keep his brother with him. This was when he planned a trick for his brother, by accusing him of (committing) theft, because the thief is enslaved according to the Sharee’ah Ya’qub.
They add to this by saying that it should not be said that this is specific to Sayyiduna Yusuf, because specification requires evidence. This is because in origin anything mentioned regarding the Prophets and their guidance is intended to be emulated and followed.
In addition they say that nobody should claim that this is from the Shar’a of those before us, because the subject of ruling is not from the furu’ (branches) of the Sharee’ah over which there may be differences in the laws, rather it is from the Usul, which are agreed upon. This is also because Sayyiduna Yusuf acknowledged that, “The Command is for none but Allah.” [TMQ 12:40], and despite his acknowledgement, he still participated in ruling.
The one who studies the ayaat from Surah Yusuf, which relate to this subject, will notice that this opinion, that permits participation in the systems of kufr, is based on the two following ayaat; “He could not take his brother by the deen (law) of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76], and; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land.’” [TMQ 12:55]. They explained them in a manner that agrees with their opinion. They forgot all the principles upon which Islam is built that are contrary to their opinion, and ignored the ayaat that contradicted this understanding. They even dismissed the subject of the infallibility of the Prophets. If their understanding of these two ayaat collapsed, then everything they built on the subject of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) collapses.
The Prophets are the pure ones of Allah (swt) from His creation and His chosen ones. He selects them to spread His deen. They are the example and model for their people. They are the true examples of subservience and adherence, since they undertook His command in the best way. Allah (swt) has protected them from sins and temptations, and made them firm on the truth and granted them His Help. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) is from this chosen group. Allah (swt) has praised him and given him a brilliant commendation in more than one ayah. He (swt) said; “Thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of dreams and perfect His favour on you…” [TMQ 12:6]. He (swt) said; “And when he (Yusuf) attained his full manhood, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, thus we reward the Muhsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:22]. He (swt) said; “Thus it was, that We might turn away from him evil and illegal sexual intercourse. Surely he was one of Our chosen, guided slaves.” [TMQ 12:24]. He (swt) said; “Thus did We establish Yusuf in the land, to take possession therein, as when or where he likes. We bestow of Our Mercy on whom We please, and We make not to be lost the reward of the Muhsinoon (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:56]
He was a da’ee (carrier of da’wah) to Allah (swt) of the highest type. The Qur’an mentions that when his companions in prison asked him about the interpretation of their dreams he said; “Are many different lords (gods) better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, but only names that you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]
He was chaste, bound by Allah (swt) and seeking protection with Him. So Allah (swt) turned him away from the tricks of women and from the tricks of al-Aziz’s wife, whose statement has been mentioned by the Qur’an; “And I did seek to seduce him, but he refused. And now if he refuses to obey my order, he shall certainly be cast into prison, and will be one of those who are disgraced. He said: ‘O my Lord! Prison is more to my liking than that to which they invite me. Unless You turn away their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant.’ So his Lord answered his invocation and turned away from him their plot. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” [TMQ 12:32-34]. The people testified to his chastity, goodness and honesty. His two companions in prison said to him; “Inform us of the interpretation of this, verily, we think you are one of the Mushsineen (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:36]. One of the two companions, who was freed after the King saw his dream, said to Yusuf: “O Yusuf, the man of truth!” [TMQ 12:46]. After he refused to come out of prison unless his innocence was manifest, the women said; “The women said: ‘Allah forbid! No evil know we against him!’ The wife of Al-Aziz said: ‘Now the truth is manifest (to all), it was I who sought to seduce him, and he is surely of the truthful.’” [TMQ 12:51]. The King, impressed by him, said; “Bring him to me that I may attach him to my person.” [TMQ 12:54]. His brothers said, after he decided to take his brother: “So take one of us in his place. Indeed we think that you are one of the Muhsinuun (those who do good).” [TMQ 12:78]. Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) acknowledged that what Allah (swt) had favoured him with, was because of his Taqwa and steadfastness, in obedience and his staying away from sins. He said; “He said: ‘I am Yusuf, and this is my brother. Allah has indeed been gracious to us. Verily, he who fears Allah with obedience to Him, and is patient, then surely, Allah makes not the reward of the Musinoon (good-doers) to be lost.’” [TMQ 12:90]
How is it possible for some Muslims to accuse someone of such status to whom Allah (swt) bears witness, and who was not accused by anyone that met him? This is despite there is nothing, not even a single indication in the Qur’an - that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King. There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except the one that is; “They (Yusuf’s brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime).’” [TMQ 12:75]. This rule was according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). There is no indication to any knowledge that he ruled by something other than what Allah (swt) had revealed. Their suspicious argument has come from the following ayah: “He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76]. This ayah, when it is explained with the correct tafseer (interpretation), then this shubhah (suspicion) is removed and their claims fall apart.
The ayah was ambiguous to the advocates of this approach, so they explained it in a way that suits their position. So their explanation was as follows.
After the famine years occurred, people started to come to Yusuf (as) from everywhere to give them something from the crops that he had saved by his management, and whose distribution the King had charged him with. His brothers came, and he recognised them while they did not recognise him. He told his younger brother that he was his brother, so that he would not be grieved. He planned a trick for his brothers, and put the siqayah (drinking vessel) in the saddle of his brother’s camel, without anybody noticing. So he said that he had lost it, and somebody announced that the owners of the camel caravan had stolen. They assigned one camel load for the one who finds it. The brothers of Yusuf (as) rejected the accusation with great vehemence. Those who supervised the distribution from amongst the aides of Yusuf (as), said; “What then shall be the penalty of him, if you are (proved to be) liars.” [TMQ 12:74]. Yusuf’s brothers said; “The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held (as a bondman) for the atonement.” [TMQ 12:75], which means the thief would be taken as a bondsman (enslaved). This was in accordance with the Sharee’ah (law) of Ya’qub (as). So Yusuf (as) started to search their baggage before his younger brother’s baggage. He then brought it out of his younger brother’s baggage, so his penalty was to be taken as a bondsman and enslaved. Then came the ayah that said about Sayyiduna Yusuf (as); “He could not take his brother by the law of the King.” [TMQ 12:76]. Some of them explained it to mean the Sharee’ah (law) and Nizam (system) of the King. This meant that the King in Egypt had a Sharee’ah and a system, and Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) governed with the Sharee’ah and system of this King. In this problem, he planned a trick by which he could keep his brother at his side. So he resorted to a polite plot, to make them pronounce themselves the penalty by which they will be accounted. He did not tell them that the penalty of the thief according to the law of the King is such and such. Rather he made them pronounce the verdict according to the law of Ya’qub, so as to keep his brother with him.
The explanation of this ayah in this manner has made them come out with this understanding.
If we refer to the word ‘deen’ in the Arabic, we find it of the common words, which carry more than one meaning. In the dictionary Lisan al-Arab (the arab tongue), it states that, ‘deen’ means the coercion and obedience. So ‘dintuhum fa danoo’ means ‘I coerced them, so they obeyed.’ Deen also means the reward and the prize. You say ‘dintuhu for his action deenun’ to mean ‘I rewarded him.’ Also ‘Youm al-deen’ means the ‘day of recompense.’ Deen also means the accounting, as in His (swt) saying; “The Owner of Youm al-deen.” [TMQ 1:3] Deen also means Sharee’ah and Sultan, as in His (swt) saying; “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (persecution) and the deen will in its entirety be for Allah.” [TMQ 8:39]. Deen means humiliation and enslavement, and the ‘madeen’ is the slave, al-madeenah is the possessed nation, as in His (swt) saying, “Are we Madeenoon?” [TMQ 37:53], meaning ‘owned’. The same as in His (swt) saying, “Then why do you not – if you are not madeeneen – bring it (the soul) back, if you are truthful?” [TMQ 56:86-87]. ‘Madeeneen’ here means owned.
There are other meanings for this word ‘deen’.
So, which of these meanings does Allah (swt) intend in this ayah? Selecting any one of these meanings needs a qareena (indication) that makes us take that specific meaning. This exposes the one who takes the meaning that suits him and suits his view; he appoints his whims as a judge over the Shar’a. While the one who takes the meaning that is regulated, and restricted with Shar’ee qara’in (indications) that indicate it, is appointing the Shar’a as a judge, and abides by the command of his Lord. So which of these meanings is intended?
If we say the meaning intended from the word deen is Sharee’ah, we find that the Shar’ee indications prevent this understanding, if it leads to Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) participating (in ruling) with kufr. This is haraam for the Prophets and believers, and in conflict with the nature of the Message, which is established on making worship and servitude for Allah (swt) alone, and the right of legislation is only for Him. He (swt) says; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying): Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)], so worship Me (Alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25]. Hence, it was Yusuf (as), who used to say to the people; “The command (or judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [TMQ 12:39-40]. It is impossible that he would go against them in this matter and accept the rule of different gods. Similar to this situation, we find Sayyiduna Shu’ayb (as) saying to his people: “I wish not, in contradiction to you, to do that which I forbid you. I only desire to do good so far as I am able, to the best of my power. And my guidance cannot come except from Allah, in Him I trust and unto Him I repent.” [TMQ 11:88]. The tafseer of this ayah, according to al-Qurtubi, is; I do not forbid you from something I commit myself, just as I do not leave a matter that I have commanded you to do.
If we say that the intended meaning of the word ‘deen’ is enslavement, and his brother would become ‘madeenan’ ie an unowned slave; this meaning would completely conform with what was previously mentioned in the ayah about the statement of Yusuf’s (as) brothers regarding the fact that a thief is enslaved. Thus, the ayah would mean; He could not take his brother, by being enslaved by the King, ie by making him madeen (an owned slave) to him, except if Allah (swt) willed. This meaning is closest to the truth. There is no Shar’ee indication that prevents such a meaning. Rather it fits with what came before it in the ayah, and it confirms that Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) was one of the muhsineen (those who do good), and mukhliseen (sincere to Allah), as Allah mentioned. It also confirms what the people bore witness to.
Therefore, a tafseer that conflicts with the infallibility of the Prophets, their immunity from sin, or implies that they say what they do not do, is rejected.
As for the tafseer of Sayyiduna Yusuf’s statement to the King; “(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55], and taking it to mean that he requested the treasury ministry, or ministry of finance; and that during his appointment to this position, he did not apply the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as), but rather the system of the King, which was not based on justice. This is a huge aberration and a clear deviation from the truth. It is important that we acquaint ourselves a number of issues in order to shed light on the matter.
* The reality of ruling in that period was that it was monarchical. In history, the monarchical rule has taken two form:
1 - The authoritarian system of monarchy, where the King rules by his own order, and opinion. Whatever he deems fit the people must follow, and no one can change his judgement. The legislative, executive and judicial authorities all come under his control. He appoints his assistants and removes them whenever he wants. He may select them due to their loyalty or closeness to him, or because of their sound judgement or good planning. It is enough for these assistants to be loyal and obedient in order to be given a free reign; so they will rule according to their own orders and be despotic in their opinion. Thus each becomes a King on a reduced scale.
2 - Monarchy with restricted authority. The King in this system became an image rather than a real King; this is where his absolute powers have been stripped from him. The sovereignty in this system lies with the constitution and canons, and not the King. Legislative bodies undertake the enactment of laws, instead of the King. There are also executive bodies, which implement the constitution and canons instead of the King. There are also judicial bodies, which settle disputes and resolve conflicts between people, instead of the King. This form of monarchy became prevalent after the idea of Democracy spread. This is the restricted (constitutional) monarchy. Which of these two forms was the monarchy system adopted in Egypt, in the time of Yusuf (as)?
No one can imagine that the King of Egypt at the time of Yusuf (as) was bound to a constitution and system. The expression ‘deen al-malik’ does not mean what they claim, that is the law of the King. The opinion that sees an analogy between the system of monarchy at the time of Yusuf (as) with the systems of today that control the actions of the rulers, is an opinion that deviated from the correct opinion, and it is an erroneous analogy.
Sayyiduna Yusuf’s request to the King to put him in charge of the storehouses, and the King’s acceptance of his request does not mean this request had anything to do with ruling. What was mentioned by the Qur’an was restricted to the subject of dreams and not to anything else. It relates to the production of crops, the years of harvest and the years of drought and what should be done regarding them. Thus, he ordered Sayyiduna Yusuf (as) to take up the responsibility of storing the flour, and organise the distribution in the years of harvest so as to accommodate for the years of drought, without committing excess in his task or betraying the trust that had been given to him. This is a difficult task, which cannot be done except by someone competent, trustworthy, careful and knowledgeable, like Yusuf (as). What took place between Yusuf (as) and his brothers was specifically related to this subject. We are not allowed to deviate from this context or expand the scope Sayyidina Yusuf’s responsibility. We are not entitled to say that his task related to seizing wealth and spending it on the King’s entourage, family, army or citizens, and that this must have taken place according to the system of the King and not the Shar’eeah of Ya’qub (as). The expansion of the text to encompass such details requires a daleel.
It seems that the King was impressed by the sound judgment of Yusuf (as) and his ability to outweigh things and his integrity. This is what made the King draw Yusuf (as) close to him and give him the authority to manage the great task, that had preoccupied his mind ever since he saw his dream. So it was important that Yusuf (as) be given the opportunity to do this without interference from anyone else.
One can see that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not just interpret the dream of the King. Rather he offered him the solution and the necessary organisation. This allowed the King to gain confidence in Yusuf’s ability to look after the stores, and to give him a free reign in doing this. The King did not say to Yusuf (as) that he had a Sharee’ah or a system according to which Yusuf (as) must proceed. Rather the King accepted Yusuf’s (as) interpretation of his dream and his solution. Consequently the King gave him the job of storing and distributing the harvest as he saw fit.
It was inevitable that after the years of drought, Yusuf (as) would be the person to whom the people would turn to save them from hunger. It was also inevitable that his fame would spread far and wide, due to his justice and fair distribution. This strengthened his position with the King and made him even closer to him. Perhaps this is what enabled him to move from being the Aziz, as his brothers addressed him; “O ruler of the land (O Aziz).” [TMQ 12:88], to being the King after his parents came from the desert. He made du’a to his Lord and said; “My Lord! You have indeed bestowed on me of the sovereignty…” [TMQ 12:101]; and then Allah (swt) said; “And he raised his parents to the throne…” [TMQ 12:100], which means that the authority was given to him eventually.
The only law the Qur’an mentions that Yusuf (as) implemented, was to take his brother as a slave according to the Sharee’ah of Ya’qub (as). So why did he not take from the system of the King for the violation, if the King had a fixed and specific system?
It is not possible to imagine that Sayyidina Yusuf (as) would commit any violation of the Sharee’ah. That is because he is ma’sum (infallible) and his Lord has described him as muhsin (good), sincere and pious. He is the one who preferred prison to seduction. He was the one who used to give da’wah in prison. He was the one who refused to leave prison without proving his innocence. He was the one who, due to his honesty and integrity, won the admiration of the kuffar of his society, from the wife of the Aziz, to the women of the town, his two companions in prison, the King, and even his brothers, before they discovered his identity.
It is worth noting that the tafseer of the situation of Sayyidina Yusuf (as) and the State of the King are all tafseer zanni (speculative interpretation). This is regardless of whatever angle they may have come from. So whether the King embraced Islam or remained a disbeliever, or whether the authority had been passed onto Yusuf owing to the death of the King or his resignation, or if Yusuf (as) became Aziz after the removal or death of the previous Aziz; the explanation of His (swt) saying, “He could not have taken his brother according to the King’s law.” [TMQ 12:76], or the interpretation of His (swt) saying, “Set me over the store houses of the land…” [TMQ 12:55]; the answers to all of these are speculative interpretations only. This is because the Qur’an did not provide us with the necessary details to answer them definitively. Furthermore, their details are not necessary for us to follow as legislation. What we have mentioned is also no exception to this, since it is speculative like the other explanations. However, it is different from other opinions in the sense that it is in harmony with what befits the Prophets in terms of Taqwa and Imaan, and does not contradict the infallibility of the Prophets that is established in the fundamentals of the deen. How much further can an explanation be from the truth when it contradicts a definite statement uttered by the tongue of Yusuf (as) himself, when he rejected others to follow the ‘Aqeedah of shirk, and to leave the exclusive reference to Allah (swt) for judgment, as we have seen previously? By proceeding in this manner, where we clarify the situation of Yusuf (as), we do not wish to bring another opinion to support the prohibition of participating in kufr systems. Our view is the Hukm of the Shar’a and not a speculative Shar’a rule. It is definite in meaning and authenticity.
Someone might say that Yusuf (as) used to rule by the law of the King by permission of Allah (swt) and so did not go against his Lord. The answer is that either this permission was for Sayyiduna Yusuf specifically, or it was a general permission for all, i.e. ruling by kufr laws was lawful at the time.
If it is a specific permission for Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), then it is not allowed for anyone else to act upon this permission. Therefore, it is not for us to follow or cite this as proof.
In the second case, if it had been lawful for their time, then it would come to us being the law (Shar’a) of those who came before us. So the question becomes, can the Shar’a of those who came before us be a Shar’a for us? A group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down the following principle; “the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us”, citing as proof many texts that show that what Muhammad (saw) brought has completely abrogated the previous laws and abrogated some parts of it in the details to emphasize this point. If we adopt the opinion of this group of scholars, then it would not be allowed for us to follow or cite as proof the situation of Yusuf (as) or any other Prophet. Another group of scholars of Fiqh and Usul have laid down another principle; “the Shar’a of before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated.” Those scholars also have their juristic reasoning. They say that if the previous laws are not to have any use for us, then the Qur’an would not have mentioned them. Those scholars say that what Muhammad (saw) brought did not abrogate everything that came before us all at once. They say that what is mentioned of the laws of the previous Prophets in the Qur’an and the Sunnah are recognized as a law for us; except what the Qur’an abrogated from these laws, and replaced with new ones.
When we apply this principle on this subject matter, what do we find? In our Sharee’ah, are there texts that prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed? Has anything been mentioned in what the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw) or the Sharee’ah that the Qur’an brought, which warns us of deviating a hairbreadth from this Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw)?
Indeed, the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (saw) has forbidden us from referring to anything other than it for solving our disputes. It forbade us, in a definite manner, to take any rule from the rules of kufr and jahiliyyah. If it is claimed that this was lawful in the time of Sayyiduna Yusuf (as), we say to those who claim it that even if you assume that it was lawful then, it is certainly forbidden (abrogated) in the Sharee’ah of the Qur’an now.
The view that ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is from the Usul (principles) and not from the branches, is an incorrect view. That is because the place of the beliefs is the heart, and the place of the Sharee’ah rules is the limbs. The ‘Aqeedah represents the basis of the Sharee’ah rules whilst the rules are the fruits of the ‘Aqeedah.
The Shar’ee rule related to the actions of the servant has two aspects.
1 - The intellectual and creedal aspect which must be accepted.
In this aspect it is related to the ‘Aqeedah. Non-acceptance of it may lead to disbelief or sin according to whether it is qat’i (decisive) or zanni (speculative).
2 - The aspect that is practical, relating to execution.
Thus, the Salah is fard and must be accepted as fard. Not accepting it as a fard leads to kufr (disbelief).
The Salah is fard and must be undertaken as a fard; not undertaking it as a fard leads to sin.
Alcohol is haraam and its prohibition must be accepted; saying it is permissible will lead to kufr.
Alcohol is haraam and drinking it is forbidden. Drinking alcohol will lead to sin.
In the same way, ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is fard. Its acceptance is linked to Imaan owing to the definite text that deals with this subject. As for its execution, it is Taa’ah (obedience) and not to execute it is a ma’siyah (sin). So the one who does not rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed is charged with kufr if he does not believe in ruling by Allah’s revelations or if he rejects it. He will be committing a sin (which excludes kufr) if he accepts it but does not apply it. Therefore, the statement that ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed is from the agreed Usul refers to the first aspect. This is correct. As for the second aspect (the practical aspect) it is related to the Sharee’ah and its application. In other words, it relates to the furoo’ (branches) and not the Usul (the foundations). So from this perspective it becomes part of the issue of whether it is from the Shar’a before us or not.
From this angle we have established that Sayyiduna Yusuf did not participate in ruling, and it is not allowed to explain this situation in this way. The statements of the people who claim otherwise are rejected, even from their own arguments. This is because the ‘ulema had two opinions regarding the principle of Shar’a man qablana (Shar’a that came before us). One opinion says that the Shar’a before us is not a Shar’a for us. So according to this understanding, the permission to participate in the jaahili system is rejected. The second opinion says that the Shar’a of those before us is a Shar’a for us as long as it has not been abrogated. Many ayaat, the ‘Aqeedah, the actions of the Messenger (saw)—who showed us the method of how to establish the ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed—and all of the principles of ruling, indicated that it is not allowed to participate in kufr systems. Rather, Islam in its totality rejects such an understanding. In other words, if participating in jaahili systems was lawful in the Shar’a before us, then it is something our Shar’a has abrogated, due to the numerous evidences that prohibit it.
The view that everything mentioned from the lives of the Prophets and their guidance, is meant to be emulated and followed, needs explanation.
All the Prophets share in the matter of the ‘Aqeedah. All of them invited people to the belief in Allah, al-Waahid (the One), al-Khaaliq (the Creator) and al-Mudabbir (the organizer of affairs). They invited people to the belief in the angels, books, messengers and the Last Day. He (swt) said; “And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying): ‘Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)]’, so worship Me (alone and none else).” [TMQ 21:25]
They also share in the matter of conveyance, suffering for the sake of the da’wah, its harms and hardships, having sabr (patience) for Allah’s sake and sacrifice in His Path. He (swt) said: “Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad [saw]), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before) you.” [6:34]. He (swt) said; “Nothing is said to you (O Muhammad [saw]) except what was said to the Messengers before you.” [TMQ 41:43]
They shared in inviting their people to adherence and obedience. He (swt) said: “We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64]
They shared in being rejected by their people and the ridiculing of their da’wah. He (swt) said; “Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at him.” [TMQ 36:30]. And He (swt) said; “And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-14]
They share in the fact that Allah (swt) has given them the victory in the end. He (swt) said; “(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah).” [TMQ 12:110]
In this manner all of the da’waat (messages) used have many things in common, some of which we have mentioned. The position assumed by those before has been mentioned. Allah (swt) mentioned them to us so that we may learn from them, reflect and take admonition from those things that strengthen our Imaan, strengthen our resolve, increase us in patience. They also assure us that the chain of the da’wah is the same in its ‘Aqeedah, its call to adhere to the minhaj (way) of the All-Knowing and All-Informed, and its outcome. The ayaat have come to illuminate the path of the da’wah for the Muslims and to inform them about the nature of people’s opposition, the intensification of hostilities between kufr and Imaan, and the struggle that will never stop. It also reminded us of the walaa’ (loyalty) to Allah (swt) and being baraa’ (free) from shirk, the divine intervention after the test of Imaan and many other matters apart from those we have mentioned.
However, the lives of the Prophets are followed in the stances they assumed. They are not followed in legislation. This is because Allah (swt) has given a different system for every Prophet. He (swt) said; “For each (prophet), We made a Shar’a and a minhaj (way).” [TMQ 5:48]. This is because every prophet was sent to his people whilst the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to all of the people. His Message was the final message. Allah (swt) ordered the followers of other religions to follow it and to leave what they had been following. He (swt) said; “Truly, the deen with Allah is Islam.” [TMQ 3:19], and He (swt) said; “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” [TMQ 3:85], and He (swt) said; “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad [saw]) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it (old Scriptures) and dominating over it.” [TMQ 5:48]
Furthermore, the nature of the Message revealed to Sayyiduna Muhammad differs from others, in that it is final and comprehensive. The Islamic State represents one of its most important parts, since it is considered the Shar’eeah method to protect, apply and propagate Islam. With the other Prophets we find that their da’wah was specific to a people and came specifically for their people, to the exclusion of others. This means their da’wah was restricted to a specific time and place. This is contrary to Islam whose Shar’eeah rules are suitable for all times and places. This difference does not permit analogy between Islam and anything else. This leaves the Muslims to restrict themselves to adopting from Islam only, because its rules are interlinked in a manner that fits to its nature. Let us take for example the Message of Sayyiduna ‘Isa. It is clearly different from the Message of Sayyiduna Muhammad, since it is a moral and spiritual message, which does not contain any call for the establishment of a State. It is also specific to Bani Israel. So how can the Shar’eeah rules be compared?
We regret that we have to discuss matters that are obvious in the deen. It indicates the level to which the du’aa today have descended. All we can say is what the Noble Qur’an said to Sayyiduna Muhammad (saw); “Say: ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me…’” [TMQ 12:108]
“He could not take his brother by the law of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it.” [TMQ 12:76]
“(Yusuf) said: ‘Set me over the store-houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.’” [TMQ 12:55]
“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but We inspired him (saying):’Laa ilaaha illa ana [none has right to be worshipped but I (Allah)] worship Me (Alone an none else).’” [TMQ 21:25]
“Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad [saw]), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before) you.” [TMQ 6:34]
“We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave.” [TMQ 4:64]
“Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at them.” [TMQ 36:30]
“And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: ‘Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to your religion.’ so their Lord inspired them: ‘Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimoon (disbelievers, wrongdoers). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection) and also fears My Threat.’” [TMQ 14:13-15]
“(They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimoon (criminals, disobedient to Allah.” [TMQ 12:110]
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Part 3, The Islamic Rules of Trade
Due to the current global financial crisis there is increasing interest in the Islamic Economic System, the most comprehensive book on this topic is 'The Economic System of Islam' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. However as people have many questions relating to the Islamic rules of trade we will be posting related extracts from the draft translation of the Fiqh masterpiece 'The Islamic Personality, Volume 2' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
The selling of advance credit (As-salam)
Selling that which one does not own and that whose ownership has not been accomplished is forbidden due to the ahadith concerning that. The ahadith came generally including all sales of that which is not owned or whose ownership is not completed. He (saw) said:
لا تَبِع ما ليس عندك
“Do not sell that which you do not have” (narrated by Ahmad).
And he said to Uttab bin Usayd:
إنهَهُم عن بيعِ ما لم يقبضوه
“Prohibit them from selling that which they have not taken possession of.”
However these general evidences have been specified in other than the sale of advance credit. As for advance credit sale, the Shar’a has excluded it from the prohibition and permitted it. He (saw) said:
من أسلَم فليسلمْ في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance for something, then he should for a specific measure and a specific weight and for a specific period” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
The “salam” is the “salaf” with two “fatha” in weight and meaning. It is the one who delivers present compensation for a described compensation as surety for a period i.e. advance money as price for a good he will possess after a time for a specific period. The advance credit sale is a category of sale which is contracted according to what a sale is contracted, and by the word “salam” and “salaf”. And it is (also) said “aslam” and “aslaf”. The same conditions are considered as in a sale.
The transaction of people in salam and tasleef takes place because they are in need of it particularly the farmers and traders. The owners of crops and fruits need expenditure for themselves and upon it to complete what these crops and fruits require of work. Money could become scarce such that they do not have it, so they sell their produce before it emerges for an advance price which he takes possession of immediately in the contract session (majlis al-‘aqd) upon the condition of delivering the good to the buyer when the imposed period falls due. The trader would sell the goods not with them for a specific period which they would determine, and they take possession of the price immediately in the contract session upon condition of delivering the good when the imposed period becomes due.
The permissibility of advance credit sale is established by the Sunnah. It is narrated from ibn Abbas (ra) who said:
من أسلف فليسلف في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“The Prophet (saw) came to Madinah and they would pay in advance for fruits for one or two years so he said: Whoever pays in advance, let him pay in advance for a specific measure and specific weight for a specific period” (narrated by Muslim).
From Abdurahman bin Abza and Abdullah bin Abi Awfa who both said:
كنا نصيب المغانم مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان يأتينا أنباط من أنباط الشام فنسلفهم في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب إلى أجل مسمى، قيل: أكان لهم زرع أو لم يكن؟ قال: ما كنا نسألهم عن ذلك
“We used to acquire booties with the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there would come to us the Nabatheans of the Nabatheans of Sham. So we would pay them in advance for wheat, barley and raisins for a specific period. He said: I said: Did they have crops with them or did they not have crops with them? They both said: We would not ask them about that” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
And in a narration:
كنا نسلف على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب والتمر وما نراه عندهم
“We would pay in advance at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw), Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) in wheat, barley, dates and raisins to a people who did not have it with them” (narrated by Abu Dawud).
All these are clear evidences for permitting advance credit sale. As for what are the things in which salam is allowed, and what are the things in which it is not permitted, this is clear in the hadith and Ijma'a. This is because the salam is buying that which is not owned and buying something over which ownership has not been completed, and they are both prohibited. Salam was excluded for them by a clear text so it specified the prohibition in other than that. Accordingly it is necessary that the thing in which salam is valid be clearly stated. Upon returning to the texts we find that Salam is permitted in everything that is measured and weighed just as it is permitted in everything counted. As for permitting it in what is measured and weighed, this is due to what is established in the hadith of ibn Abbas. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
من أسلف فليسلف في ثمن معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلموم
“Whoever pays in advance in dates let him pay in advance for a known price and a known weight for a specified period.”
And in another narration of ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
من أسلم فليسلم في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance in something then he should pay for a known measure and a known weight for a known period” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
This indicates that the money which is delivered is in what is measured and weighted. As for its permissibility in the counted (things), the Ijma'a has contracted upon the Salam in foodstuff being allowed. This Ijma'a has been transmitted by ibn Mundhir. Al-Bukhari narrated and said: Shu’bah related to us and said: Muhammad or Abdullah bin Abi Al-Majalid informed and said:
إنا كنا نسلف على عهد رسول الله وأبي بكر وعمر في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب والتمر
“Abdullah bin Shaddad bin Al-Hadi and Abu Burdah differed over advance credit sale so they sent me to ibn Abi Awfa (ra) so I asked him and said: ‘We would perform advance credit sale (salaf) in the time of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar in wheat, barely and dates.”
This indicates that foodstuff is permitted. Foodstuff is not devoid of being measured, weighed or counted so the rule is related to all that foodstuff which is measured, weighed or counted just like taking possession is related to it in its being of that which needs taking possession of and just as it is related to riba of excess (riba al-fadhl) in its being riba if there is excess in the measure or weight or count. So salam is also related to it in its being foodstuff which is measured, weighed and counted. In the hadith is a text upon the permissibility of the measured and the counted but it did not mention the counted (thing). The Ijma'a over the permissibility of foodstuff makes the counted (thing) included in the Salam.
However it is necessary that the things paid for in advance are exact in description like Jurani wheat, Birni dates, Egyptian cotton, Indian silk, Turkish figs and exact in measurement or weight like a Syrian sa’a, an Iraqi pound and the kilo and litre i.e. it is necessary that the measure or weight be known and described.
Just as it is obligatory for the category for which the advance is paid be known, similarly the sale must be for a period and it must be a known period. Salam is not valid immediately, but rather it is necessary that the period be made a condition due to the Prophet (saw)’s statement:
من أسلف فليسلف في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance for something, then for a known measure and a known weight for a known period.’
This indicates that the period is a condition for the validity of salam. However where it is immediate and no period is determined then it is not called advance credit sale because that which makes it Salam and salaf is the bringing forward of one of the compensations and delaying the other. It is necessary that the period be known due to the Prophet (saw)’s statement: “for a known period.” Specifying the period is only for a period which in itself does not differ such as a month, year, six months or to such and such date in a way that there is no great difference over it like Eid al-Adha or to Ramadhan. Similarly it is valid that the salam be to the (fash) النصارى وصومهم ى of the Christians and their fasting as this is known and does not differ. A minor difference is forgiven. Every period is allowed to be delayed until without difference between a nearby or a remote period. However the word “period” (ajal) has an indication which is acted upon according to the terminology of the people over its indication. If they consider that an hour is not considered therein but rather it is from the type of immediate (sale), and if they consider it a period thereupon the hour is considered a period like the year is considered a period.
Similarly it is necessary that the price be known due to his (saw) statement: “Then let him pay in advance for a known price.” It is not permitted except that the price be handed over immediately in the contract session, so if the contractors separate before the entire price is taken possession, then the whole contract is invalidated. This is because advance sale in the Arabic language with which the Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us is something being given for something i.e.. Money is given in advance for a good taken afterwards. So if one does not pay for what he ordered in advance (aslaf) then he has not paid in advance for anything; he has merely promised that he will pay in advance. Were he to pay some of the price, whether a little or most of it, then the advance sale is valid in what he gave possession of and void in what he did not give possession of. The seller taking possession of the price from the buyer is a condition for the validity of Salam. As for the existence of the sold good during the sale, it is not a condition. Salam is permitted in what is present and what is not present when the Salam is contracted, and with the one who has something with him and the one without anything. This is because the Prophet came to Madinah; they would pay in advance for fruits for a year or two. It is known that fruits do not remain for this period and the Messenger did not prohibit them from one year or two but rather consented upon that for them. Hence it is permitted to pay the price of the good to be delivered after a specific period considered a period, whether the good exists or not. However it is a condition that there should not be in the price excessive fraud; rather it is obligatory that the price be according to the market during the sale contract similar to the deferred period, not the delivery of the good. This is because the Salam is a sale and excessive fraud is forbidden in all sales so the Salam in included within it. Just as it is haram for a good to be taken possession of immediately for a deferred price via excessive fraud, similarly it is not permitted to sell a good to be taken possession of in the future for a price to be taken possession of immediately via excessive fraud, therefore fraud in salam is haram. If fraud appears in the Salam then its rule is the rule of fraud in sale; for the deceived, there is an option. If he wishes, he can annul the sale and if he wishes he can execute it. It is not for him to take the difference between the price of the real good and the price with which it is bought. However this option is established upon two conditions. Firstly, the absence of knowledge at the time of the contract. Secondly, the deceitful surplus or deficit which the people do not لا يتغابن (taghabun) over its like. Clear fraud is evaluated by the evaluation of the trader so what they consider is fraud develops into and what they do not, is not.
The selling of advance credit (As-salam)
Selling that which one does not own and that whose ownership has not been accomplished is forbidden due to the ahadith concerning that. The ahadith came generally including all sales of that which is not owned or whose ownership is not completed. He (saw) said:
لا تَبِع ما ليس عندك
“Do not sell that which you do not have” (narrated by Ahmad).
And he said to Uttab bin Usayd:
إنهَهُم عن بيعِ ما لم يقبضوه
“Prohibit them from selling that which they have not taken possession of.”
However these general evidences have been specified in other than the sale of advance credit. As for advance credit sale, the Shar’a has excluded it from the prohibition and permitted it. He (saw) said:
من أسلَم فليسلمْ في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance for something, then he should for a specific measure and a specific weight and for a specific period” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
The “salam” is the “salaf” with two “fatha” in weight and meaning. It is the one who delivers present compensation for a described compensation as surety for a period i.e. advance money as price for a good he will possess after a time for a specific period. The advance credit sale is a category of sale which is contracted according to what a sale is contracted, and by the word “salam” and “salaf”. And it is (also) said “aslam” and “aslaf”. The same conditions are considered as in a sale.
The transaction of people in salam and tasleef takes place because they are in need of it particularly the farmers and traders. The owners of crops and fruits need expenditure for themselves and upon it to complete what these crops and fruits require of work. Money could become scarce such that they do not have it, so they sell their produce before it emerges for an advance price which he takes possession of immediately in the contract session (majlis al-‘aqd) upon the condition of delivering the good to the buyer when the imposed period falls due. The trader would sell the goods not with them for a specific period which they would determine, and they take possession of the price immediately in the contract session upon condition of delivering the good when the imposed period becomes due.
The permissibility of advance credit sale is established by the Sunnah. It is narrated from ibn Abbas (ra) who said:
من أسلف فليسلف في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“The Prophet (saw) came to Madinah and they would pay in advance for fruits for one or two years so he said: Whoever pays in advance, let him pay in advance for a specific measure and specific weight for a specific period” (narrated by Muslim).
From Abdurahman bin Abza and Abdullah bin Abi Awfa who both said:
كنا نصيب المغانم مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان يأتينا أنباط من أنباط الشام فنسلفهم في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب إلى أجل مسمى، قيل: أكان لهم زرع أو لم يكن؟ قال: ما كنا نسألهم عن ذلك
“We used to acquire booties with the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there would come to us the Nabatheans of the Nabatheans of Sham. So we would pay them in advance for wheat, barley and raisins for a specific period. He said: I said: Did they have crops with them or did they not have crops with them? They both said: We would not ask them about that” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
And in a narration:
كنا نسلف على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب والتمر وما نراه عندهم
“We would pay in advance at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw), Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) in wheat, barley, dates and raisins to a people who did not have it with them” (narrated by Abu Dawud).
All these are clear evidences for permitting advance credit sale. As for what are the things in which salam is allowed, and what are the things in which it is not permitted, this is clear in the hadith and Ijma'a. This is because the salam is buying that which is not owned and buying something over which ownership has not been completed, and they are both prohibited. Salam was excluded for them by a clear text so it specified the prohibition in other than that. Accordingly it is necessary that the thing in which salam is valid be clearly stated. Upon returning to the texts we find that Salam is permitted in everything that is measured and weighed just as it is permitted in everything counted. As for permitting it in what is measured and weighed, this is due to what is established in the hadith of ibn Abbas. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
من أسلف فليسلف في ثمن معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلموم
“Whoever pays in advance in dates let him pay in advance for a known price and a known weight for a specified period.”
And in another narration of ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
من أسلم فليسلم في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance in something then he should pay for a known measure and a known weight for a known period” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).
This indicates that the money which is delivered is in what is measured and weighted. As for its permissibility in the counted (things), the Ijma'a has contracted upon the Salam in foodstuff being allowed. This Ijma'a has been transmitted by ibn Mundhir. Al-Bukhari narrated and said: Shu’bah related to us and said: Muhammad or Abdullah bin Abi Al-Majalid informed and said:
إنا كنا نسلف على عهد رسول الله وأبي بكر وعمر في الحنطة والشعير والزبيب والتمر
“Abdullah bin Shaddad bin Al-Hadi and Abu Burdah differed over advance credit sale so they sent me to ibn Abi Awfa (ra) so I asked him and said: ‘We would perform advance credit sale (salaf) in the time of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar in wheat, barely and dates.”
This indicates that foodstuff is permitted. Foodstuff is not devoid of being measured, weighed or counted so the rule is related to all that foodstuff which is measured, weighed or counted just like taking possession is related to it in its being of that which needs taking possession of and just as it is related to riba of excess (riba al-fadhl) in its being riba if there is excess in the measure or weight or count. So salam is also related to it in its being foodstuff which is measured, weighed and counted. In the hadith is a text upon the permissibility of the measured and the counted but it did not mention the counted (thing). The Ijma'a over the permissibility of foodstuff makes the counted (thing) included in the Salam.
However it is necessary that the things paid for in advance are exact in description like Jurani wheat, Birni dates, Egyptian cotton, Indian silk, Turkish figs and exact in measurement or weight like a Syrian sa’a, an Iraqi pound and the kilo and litre i.e. it is necessary that the measure or weight be known and described.
Just as it is obligatory for the category for which the advance is paid be known, similarly the sale must be for a period and it must be a known period. Salam is not valid immediately, but rather it is necessary that the period be made a condition due to the Prophet (saw)’s statement:
من أسلف فليسلف في كيل معلوم ووزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم
“Whoever pays in advance for something, then for a known measure and a known weight for a known period.’
This indicates that the period is a condition for the validity of salam. However where it is immediate and no period is determined then it is not called advance credit sale because that which makes it Salam and salaf is the bringing forward of one of the compensations and delaying the other. It is necessary that the period be known due to the Prophet (saw)’s statement: “for a known period.” Specifying the period is only for a period which in itself does not differ such as a month, year, six months or to such and such date in a way that there is no great difference over it like Eid al-Adha or to Ramadhan. Similarly it is valid that the salam be to the (fash) النصارى وصومهم ى of the Christians and their fasting as this is known and does not differ. A minor difference is forgiven. Every period is allowed to be delayed until without difference between a nearby or a remote period. However the word “period” (ajal) has an indication which is acted upon according to the terminology of the people over its indication. If they consider that an hour is not considered therein but rather it is from the type of immediate (sale), and if they consider it a period thereupon the hour is considered a period like the year is considered a period.
Similarly it is necessary that the price be known due to his (saw) statement: “Then let him pay in advance for a known price.” It is not permitted except that the price be handed over immediately in the contract session, so if the contractors separate before the entire price is taken possession, then the whole contract is invalidated. This is because advance sale in the Arabic language with which the Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us is something being given for something i.e.. Money is given in advance for a good taken afterwards. So if one does not pay for what he ordered in advance (aslaf) then he has not paid in advance for anything; he has merely promised that he will pay in advance. Were he to pay some of the price, whether a little or most of it, then the advance sale is valid in what he gave possession of and void in what he did not give possession of. The seller taking possession of the price from the buyer is a condition for the validity of Salam. As for the existence of the sold good during the sale, it is not a condition. Salam is permitted in what is present and what is not present when the Salam is contracted, and with the one who has something with him and the one without anything. This is because the Prophet came to Madinah; they would pay in advance for fruits for a year or two. It is known that fruits do not remain for this period and the Messenger did not prohibit them from one year or two but rather consented upon that for them. Hence it is permitted to pay the price of the good to be delivered after a specific period considered a period, whether the good exists or not. However it is a condition that there should not be in the price excessive fraud; rather it is obligatory that the price be according to the market during the sale contract similar to the deferred period, not the delivery of the good. This is because the Salam is a sale and excessive fraud is forbidden in all sales so the Salam in included within it. Just as it is haram for a good to be taken possession of immediately for a deferred price via excessive fraud, similarly it is not permitted to sell a good to be taken possession of in the future for a price to be taken possession of immediately via excessive fraud, therefore fraud in salam is haram. If fraud appears in the Salam then its rule is the rule of fraud in sale; for the deceived, there is an option. If he wishes, he can annul the sale and if he wishes he can execute it. It is not for him to take the difference between the price of the real good and the price with which it is bought. However this option is established upon two conditions. Firstly, the absence of knowledge at the time of the contract. Secondly, the deceitful surplus or deficit which the people do not لا يتغابن (taghabun) over its like. Clear fraud is evaluated by the evaluation of the trader so what they consider is fraud develops into and what they do not, is not.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Article 12, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah
The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستور
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
The only considerable evidences of the Shari'ah rules are the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma'a of the Sahaba and the Qyyas (analogy).
Explanation and evidences:
This article does not imply that the State will adopt a method of Ijtihad, it rather means that the State will adopt and follow a specific method of Ijtihad; it rather means that the State will follow a specific method when adopting the Shari'ah rules; because the adoption of the Shari'ah rules could either be in some cases obligatory or in other cases permitted for the State. If this adoption were to be conducted in two contradictory methods, it would lead to a contradiction in the basics upon which the adoption has been conducted. Therefore, the State ought to adopt a specific method in adopting the Shari'ah rules. What prompted the adoption of such a method in the adoption of rules are three reasons: 1- The rule by which the Muslim should proceed is a Shari'ah rule and not a rational rule, i.e. it is the rule of Allah pertaining this matter and not the conventional rule; therefore, the evidence from which this rule is deduced must be that which the Revelation has brought.
It is imperative for the confirmation that the evidence, from which the rule has been deduced, has been brought by way of Revelation, to be conclusive. In other words, it is imperative for the proof about the fact that the evidence from which the Shari'ah rule has been deduced has been brought by way of Revelation, to be conclusive and decisive and not doubtful. This is so because it is part of the Usul (foundations) and not part of the branches, thus doubt is not sufficient, because it is part of the Aqeedah matters and not part of the Shari'ah rules. This is so because the evidence required to deduce the rule from is an evidence which has come by way of Revelation, not just any evidence. Therefore, it is imperative to decisively confirm it as being brought by way of Revelation, and the process of confirming that it is Revelation that has brought it is a Aqeedah matter not a Shari'ah rule. Therefore, it is imperative to establish that the evidence has come by way of Revelation in a conclusive manner i.e. by a conclusive evidence; because matters of Aqeedah can only be taken conclusively.
What is conclusive is that man’s behaviour in life proceeds according to his concepts about life; and although the viewpoint about life has the Aqeedah as its basis, it is nevertheless formed of a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which are existent in the Ummah; and not all of these thoughts, which are reflected in this host of concepts, criteria and convictions, are part of Aqeedah matters, for in fact some of them are part of Aqeedah matters and others are part of Shari'ah rules; and since rules are deduced with the least amount of doubt, it is therefore feared that if the origin of the rules has not been conclusively confirmed as being brought by way of Revelation, then some of the non Islamic thoughts may creep into the Ummah due to the presence of Shari'ah rules deduced from a foundation which Revelation has not brought in the first instance.
It is for these three reasons that the adoption of a specific method, according to which the Shari'ah rules are adopted, is imperative. As for the fact that the evidences are confined exclusively to the four general evidences mentioned above, this is confirmed through study. We have studied and scrutinised the evidences which have been confirmed by a conclusive evidence to have been brought by way of Revelation, and we have not found other than these four at all.
As for the Qur'an, the evidence about the fact that it has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt) in letter and spirit is conclusive. The I'jaz of the Qur'an serves as a conclusive evidence that it is indeed the word of Allah (swt) and not the word of man. Hence, the conclusive evidence has been established that the Qur'an is the word of Allah (swt). The Qur'an itself, which has been conclusively confirmed as being the word of Allah by the evidence of the I'jaaz, states that it is Revelation that descended it upon the Messenger of Allah (saw); Allah (swt) says: [26- 193,194,195] "With it came down the Faithful Spirit * To your heart so that you may admonish * in the perspicuous Arabic tongue." T.M.Q. Allah (swt) also says: [6- 19] "And this Qur'an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you with it and those whom it reaches." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says:[21-45] "Say I do but warn you according to Revelation, but the deaf will nit hear the call when they are warned." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [20-1,2] "Ta Ha* We have not sent down the Qur'an to you so that you become distressed * But only as an admonition those who fear." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [27-6] "As to you the Qur'an is bestowed upon you from the presence of One Who is Wise and All-Knowing." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [76-23] "It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an in stages." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [42-7] "Thus We revealed to you an Arabic Qur'an." T.M.Q.
These are conclusive evidences establishing the fact that the Qur'an has been brought by way of Revelation from Allah (swt).
As for the Sunnah, the conclusive evidence about the fact that it is Revelation that has brought it from Allah (swt) in meaning and that the Messenger of Allah (saw) expressed it by his own words, this evidence is also clearly indicated in the Verses of the Qur'an. Allah (swt) says: [53-3,4] "Nor does he speak of his desire * It is no less than Revelation sent down to him." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [4-163] "We have sent you Revelation as We sent it to Nouh and the prophets after him." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [10-15] "I only follow what is revealed to me." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [7-203] "Truly I follow what is revealed to me by my God." T.M.Q. Allah (swt) says: [21- 45] "Say I do but warn you according to Revelation." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [59-7] "and whatever the Messenger brought to you take it and whatever he forbids you abstain from it." T.M.Q.
These are clear evidences denoting that whatever the Messenger of Allah (saw) has uttered in terms of the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation; they also serve as clear evidences denoting that Allah (swt) has explicitly ordered us in the Qur'an to abide by what the Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered us and to abstain from what he (saw) prohibited for us. This command is general. Hence, the evidence about the fact that the Sunnah has come by way of Revelation is conclusive, because it has been established by a conclusive Qur'anic text, that happens to be definite in meaning.
As for the Ijma'a of the Sahaba, which is considered a Shari'ah evidence, it means the general consensus of the Sahaba that such rule is a Shari'ah rule, or their general consensus that the rule pertaining such and such matter is so and so. Hence, if they unanimously consented about a certain rule as being a Shari'ah rule, their Ijma'a (general consensus) would be considered a Shari'ah evidence.
Evidence about this is reflected in two matters: 1- Allah (swt) praised them in the Qur'an through a text that is conclusive and definite in meaning. Allah (swt) says: [9-100] “The vanguards and the first from among the Muhajireen and the Ansar, and those who followed them in all the goods deeds, Allah is well pleased with them as they are with Him, and He prepared for them gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever, that is the supreme felicity." T.M.Q.
This praise by Allah (swt) of the Muhajireen (emigrants), the Ansar ( Helpers) and those who followed them with righteousness, for their emigration and their support, is a praise of the Sahaba; because those praised are the Sahaba and the meaning of the Verse is confined to them. This praise is for all of them, and the truthfulness of those whom Allah (swt) praises in such a way is conclusive.
We have taken our Deen from those Sahaba, for they transmitted to us the very Qur'an that had descended upon the Messenger of Allah, our master Mohammed (saw). Hence, if we assumed that a flaw were to creep into one single matter from among that which they had agreed upon, this means that the flaw could creep into the Qur'an, i.e. the flaw could creep into the Deen which we had taken from them, and this is as far as Shari'ah is concerned impossible. Therefore, although it would not be rationally impossible for the Sahaba to unanimously agree upon an erroneous matter, for this could happen since they are but humans, this however could not possibly happen to them as far as Shari'ah is concerned; for if this were possible, it would then possible for error to creep into the Deen, i.e. it would be possible for error to creep into the fact that this Qur'an that we have today is the same and the very Qur'an that descended upon our master Mohammed (saw), and this is impossible as far as Shari'ah is concerned; thus it would be impossible for them to generally consent on something erroneous. This serves as a conclusive proof that the Ijma'a of the Sahaba is a Shari'ah evidence. Besides, Allah (swt) says: [15-9] "We have without doubt sent down the Qur’an and We will assuredly protect it." T.M.Q. Therefore, Allah (swt) has promised to protect the Qur'an, and he who transmitted this Qur'an is he who protected it, thus this serves as evidence about the truthfulness of their Ijma'a in transmitting and compiling the Qur'an; hence, it serves as proof about the soundness of their general consensus, because if it were possible for their consensus to be flawed, it would be possible for the transmission of the Qur'an to be flawed and it would be possible for it to be unprotected. Therefore, since the non protection of the Qur'an is impossible, as indicated by the Verse, then it is impossible for error to creep into its transmission or its compiling or its protection. Hence, the Ijma'a of the Sahaba is a conclusive evidence.
However, what should be made absolutely clear is that the Ijma'a of the Sahaba stipulating that such and such rule is a Shari'ah rule, means that this general consensus of theirs discloses an evidence; i.e. that there exists for this rule an evidence derived either from the action, or the saying or the silence of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and that the Sahaba ® transmitted the rule but did not transmit the evidence. Hence, their transmission of the rule discloses the fact that there exists an evidence pertaining that rule. Therefore, their general consensus does not mean that their personal opinions are in agreement over a specific matter, for their personal opinions are not Revelation and each one of them is not infallible, thus a Sahabi’s opinion cannot be regarded as a Shari'ah evidence, because the Shari'ah evidence must be brought by way of Revelation in order to be considered as Shari'ah evidence and the Sahaba’s opinions are not as such, thus they cannot be considered as Shari'ah evidence, whether these were the opinions upon which they agreed or the opinions over which they disagreed. Therefore, the Ijma'a of the Sahaba does not mean their agreement upon one single opinion, it rather means that their general consensus about the fact that such and such rule is a Shari'ah rule, or about the fact that the rule of such and such matter is so and so according to Shari'ah; in this case it is not their opinion but rather a general consensus that it is from Shari'ah; hence, the Ijma'a of the Sahaba discloses an evidence.
Al for Al-Qyyas, it is also a Shari'ah evidence. Linguistically, it means estimating, and in the Usul terminology it is the carrying over of a known matter upon another known matter in order to either confirm a rule for both of them or to disaffirm it for both of them by a mutual factor between them. Thus, it is comparing the rule of a known matter to another known matter due to their association in the Illah (i.e. the reason) of the rule. In other words it is the extending of the root to the branch i.e. the joining of the branch to the root. Carrying a known fact over a known fact means that one of them shares the same rule with the other. The fact that this carrying is undertaken in order to either confirm the rule or disaffirm it, means that the carrying over of the branch upon the root is associating both of them in the same rule; thus the rule of the root is established for the branch, thus the branch shares the rule of the root. This rule of the root could be a confirmation, as reflected in the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to Al-Khutha’myyah: “What if your father had a debt and you paid it off, would that suffice him?” She said: “yes”. So he (saw) said: “Likewise is the debt to Allah.” Here the Messenger of Allah (saw) compared the debt to Allah to the debt of the human and stated that its settlement would suffice. In this instance, the rule is a confirmation that the settlement of the debt would suffice. The rule of the root that is carried upon could also be a disaffirmation, as is the case in what Ahmed reported on the authority of Omar ® who said: “One day I was cheerful so I kissed while I was fasting; so I went to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said to him: “I committed a big blunder today. I kissed while I was fasting.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “What if you rinsed you mouth out with water while you were fasting?” I said: “There is no harm in this.” He (saw) said: “So what is the problem.?” Here the Messenger of Allah (saw) compared the kiss of a fasting person to the rinsing out of one’s mouth in that it does not invalidate the fast. Hence, the rule in this context is a disaffirmation, that is the non invalidation of the fast.
The meaning of this carrying being based upon a common factor between the two matters is that the Illah (Shari'ah reason) of the root is also found in the branch. It is on the basis of this Illah that the carrying over takes place and this; this Illah is the common factor between the comparable and the comparable with, i.e. between the root and the branch. An example of this is reflected in what Malik reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Yazid who was informed by Zayd Abu Ayyash, that he had asked Saad Ibnu Aby Waqqas about the exchange of wheat for a prime quality barley known as “Al-Sult”, so Saad enquired: “Which of the two is better?” He said: “The white one (meaning the wheat).” Upon this Saad advised him against such exchange and said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) enquire about the purchase of dates with Rutab (ripe dates), so he (saw) said: “Would the Rutab become lighter if it dried?” They said: “Yes.” So he (saw) prohibited such sale.”
Here, the Messenger of Allah (saw) asked about the Illah that exists in the usurious money, which is the increase, whether it was also found in the sale of Rutab for dates, and when he (saw) knew of its presence, he confirmed for such type of sale the rule of Riba (usury), thus he prohibited it. In other words, it is forbidden to exchange such commodity as it is because it decreases in weight once it is dried; thus the Messenger of Allah (saw) asked about the mutual factor, which is the Shari'ah Illah of Riba.
This is the definition of Al-Qyyas according to Shari'ah. This definition has been obtained from the Ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Muslim extracted on the authority of Ibnu Abbas ® who said: “A woman came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, my other passed away before being able to fulfil a fast that she had vowed to Allah. Do I fast on her behalf?” He (saw) said: “What if your mother had a debt and you paid it off would that suffice her?” She said: “Yes.” He (saw) said: “Then fast on behalf of your mother.” Ahmed reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Abbas or on that of Al-Fadhl Ibnu Abbas that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (saw): “O Messenger of Allah, my father was an old man when Islam came, and could not ride an animal, do I perform Hajj on his behalf?” He (saw) said: “What if your father had a debt and you paid it off on his behalf, would that suffice him?” He said: “Yes.” So he (saw) said: “Then do perform Hajj on behalf of your father.” In these two Ahadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) carried over the debt to Allah (saw) in fasting and in Hajj onto the debt to the human and they both are the carrying over of a known matter upon another known matter, i.e. the association of the debt to Allah with the debt to the human in confirming that their settlement on one’s behalf would suffice. This is so because both of these matters are debts; thus the mutual factor between them is the debt and this is the Illah, and the rule that has been confirmed for both of them is the sufficing of the settlement. This is, according to Shari'ah, the reality of Al-Qyyas, which is deduced from the Shari'ah text. Therefore, this definition is a Shari'ah rule that must be implemented and it is binding the rule of Allah upon he who deduces it and upon he who imitates it, either as a Muttabi’ (i.e. a Muqallid who queries the evidence) or as a Ammi (i.e. a Muqallid who could not perceive the evidence); this rule becomes like any other Shari'ah rule, deduced from a Shari'ah evidence; because the Shari'ah definitions and principles deduced from the Shari'ah evidences are Shari'ah rules like all other Shari'ah rules. This Qyyas is based upon the Illah, i.e. upon the mutual factor between the known matter carried over and the known matter carried upon; in other words, between the root and the branch. Hence, if the Illah is found, i.e. if the mutual factor is found between the compared and the compared with; otherwise Al-Qyyas does not takes place at all. This Illah would be considered a Shari'ah evidence if it were mentioned in a Shari'ah text, or if it were compared with that which is listed by a Shari'ah text, because the Illah upon which the Al-Qyyas is based has been mentioned by Shari'ah. By contrast, if this Illah were not mentioned in a Shari'ah text, nor were it compared with that which is listed in a Shari'ah text, such a Qyyas would not be considered a Shari'ah evidence because the reason upon which it is based has not been mentioned by a Shari'ah text; thus such Qyyas could not be from Shari'ah and consequently it cannot be a Shari'ah evidence.
Evidence about this Qyyas being a Shari'ah evidence is reflected in the fact that the Shari'ah text in which the Illah is mentioned or compared with that which is mentioned in the Shari'ah text, could either come form the Book, or the Sunnah, or from the Ijma'a of the Sahaba. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari'ah evidences through conclusive proof; thus, the evidence of the Shari'ah Illah is conclusive, and that is the evidence of Al-Qyyas. This is so because the Shari'ah reason found in the rule that is mentioned by the text, which acts as the root, is that which makes the rule in the branch a Shari'ah rule and it is that which makes Al-Qyyas feasible, for without it, Al-Qyyas would not have existed in the first place. Therefore, its evidence will also serve as evidence for Al-Qyyas. This Shari'ah Qyyas has been demonstrated to us by the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he (saw) considered it a Shari'ah evidence. The Sahaba also proceeded according to it and adopted it as a Shari'ah evidence when they deduced the Shari'ah rules. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Mu’ath and Abu Moussa Al-Ash’ari when he was about to dispatch them to Yemen: “What will you judge by?” They said: “If we did not find the rule in the Book nor in the Sunnah, we would make analogy between the two matters and whichever were closest to that which is right we would act upon it.” Here, Muath and Abu Moussa stated that they would use Al-Qyyas and the Messenger of Allah (saw) approved of this, thus this serves as proof that Al-Qyyas is a Shari'ah evidence. It is reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas ® that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “My mother has died and she has a month’s fasting on her neck.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “What if your mother had a debt, would you settle it?” She said: “Yes.” Upon this he (saw) said: “Then the debt to Allah is more worthy of being settled.” Here the Messenger of Allah (saw) wanted to teach this woman, so he joined the debt to Allah to the debt of the human in the obligation of settling the debt and its sufficing, and this is exactly Al-Qyyas itself. Similar to this is what Ahmed reported on the authority of Omar Ibnul Khattab who said: “One day I was cheerful so I kissed while I was fasting; so I went to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said to him: “I committed a big blunder today. I kissed while I was fasting.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “What if you rinsed you mouth out with water while you were fasting?” I said: “There is no harm in this.” He (saw) said: “So what is the problem.?” Here the Messenger of Allah (saw) disaffirmed from the act of kissing while fasting the rule of invalidating the fast by comparing it with the act of rinsing out the mouth while fasting, which does not invalidate the fast; because neither of them enter the belly. Thus it was an explanation of the rule through the use of Al-Qyyas. Not only the rule was given a Illah in these three texts, as is the case in many texts, thus denoting Al-Qyyas, Al-Qyyas itself was also approved, taught and explained through these texts and this serves as a valid argument stipulating that Al-Qyyas is a Shari'ah evidence.
This is as far as the Messenger of Allah (saw) is concerned. As for the Sahaba, it is reported that they used Al-Qyyas in several matters. Abu Bakr ® endorsed the inheritance of the mother’s mother to the exclusion of the father’s mother. Some of the Ansar said to him: “You gave the inheritance of a dead man to a woman who if she had died, the same man would not have inherited her; and you excluded the woman whom the man would have inherited all her legacy had she been the one who died. Upon this he retracted and devised the sixth of the inheritance to be shared between both of them. Here the Sahaba compared the inheritance of the living from the dead with the legacy of the dead to the living, by assuming that the dead was living and the living was dead, thus concluding that the mutual factor, i.e. the kinship between the two person is the same in both instances. When Abu Bakr ® heard this Qyyas, he submitted to it, implemented it and retracted from his own opinion. Similar to this is what was reported that Omar ® wrote to Abu Moussa Al-Ash’ari saying: “Get acquainted with the similar and the identical matters and then make analogy between the matters according to your opinion.” Muslim extracted on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said that “Omar had heard of Samra having sold wine. It was said that Samra had taken wine from Jewish traders as tithe, so he turned it into vinegar and sold it. Upon hearing this Omar said: May Allah damn Samra, did he not know that the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “May Allah curse the Jews; fats have been made unlawful to them, so they embellished them and sold them.” Here Omar ® compared wine with fat and concluded that its prohibition stipulates the prohibition of its sale. Another example is that Omar ® was not sure about the penalty of the seven who took part in the killing of one man; so Ali ® said to him: “O Amir of the believers! What if a group of people were to take part in a theft, would you cut their hands?” He said: “Yes.” So Ali said to him: “Likewise.” This is a Qyyas between the killing and the theft, and all this indicates that Al-Qyyas is Shari'ah evidence deduced from the Sunnah and the Ijma'a of the Sahaba. Hence, that which has been confirmed through the Messenger of Allah (saw) is the Sunnah and that which has been confirmed through the Sahaba is considered a “Ijma’a Sukuti” i.e. “Silent General Consensus” because the Sahaba who utilised Al-Qyyas, did so in the presence and the full knowledge of the rest of the Sahaba, and none of them condemned it; thus it was a general consensus.
However, the Sunnah and the Ijma'a of the Sahaba have both been reported by way of individual report, thus they are considered as doubtful evidence. Therefore, the conclusive evidence about the fact that Al-Qyyas is a Shari'ah evidence is reflected in what we mentioned with regard to the Illah being mentioned in the Shari'ah text, i.e. the Book and the Sunnah or in the Ijma'a of the Sahaba. These three evidences have been confirmed as being Shari'ah evidences by way of a conclusive evidence; thus they act as the evidence for Al-Qyyas, because they are the evidence for the Illah.
It has been conclusively established that these four evidences, the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma'a of the Sahaba and Al-Qyyas have come by way of Revelation from Allah (swt). Apart from these four, no other evidence has been established through a conclusive evidence. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Shari'ah evidences are these four and nothing else.
However, it should be made clear that the rules deduced from evidences other than these four, from among those evidences recognised by a certain Imam, these rules are Shari'ah rules in the eyes of those who advocate them and those who oppose them, because there exists a vague evidence denoting that they are considered as evidences. Hence, he who considers the general consensus of the Ummah as being a Shari'ah evidence, he then goes on to deduce from this a rule, this rule becomes a Shari'ah rule in his eyes and a binding Shari'ah rule upon him; he will be forbidden from taking another rule instead. The same rule becomes also a Shari'ah rule in the eyes of those who oppose it but it does not become a binding Shari'ah rule upon them. Examples of these are “The Shari'ah of those before us is a Shari'ah for us.”, “Al-Masalih Al-Mursalah” i.e. “The Public Interests.”, “Al-Istihsaan.” i.e. “The Approbation.” and “Rationale”.
Hence, every rule deduced from any of these evidences is considered a Shari'ah rule in the eyes of those who advocate that what the rule has been deduced from is part of the Shari'ah evidences, and in the eyes of those who oppose it as well. However, it is only a binding Shari'ah rule upon he who deduces it, and not binding upon he who holds a different understanding. Thus, it is a Shari'ah rule in the eyes of all the Muslims as long as the possibility of reaching such understanding from the text is existent; i.e. as long as the vague evidence is existent; however, it is not considered a binding rule upon all the Muslims, but only binding upon he who has deduced it and he who has emulated it, and not binding upon he who has opposed it. Nonetheless, it is a Shari'ah rule. Likewise, the rule deduced from an evidence is exactly like the rule deduced from the text; it is considered a Shari'ah rule in the eyes of all the Muslims, whether for those who considered a Shari'ah evidence or for those who did not consider it a Shari'ah evidence, provided the vague evidence is existent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)