Wednesday, 16 Dhu al-Qi'dah 1446 | 2025/05/14
Time now: (M.M.T)
Media Office
Menu
Main menu
Main menu

Question & Answer The manner Hizb ut Tahrir uses to express itself To Dede Tahboub

  • Published in Q&A
  •   |  
Question & Answer The manner Hizb ut Tahrir uses to express itself To Dede Tahboub

Question:

As-Salaamu Alaikum,

I have a comment about one of the pages from the book, Hizb ut Tahrir, which was written in 09/05/1985 that describes the Hizb. On page 20, I have found that the Hizb's method in describing its party makes itself nearer to the level of a deity and maybe this is a reason for the delay in achieving our victory up until now. This is because it states in the book: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes that have led to the failure of the movements that were established to revive Muslims by Islam'. Here it (the Hizb) has denied for itself the characteristic of making errors and this characteristic is reserved alone for the Lord of the worlds since every creation errs. However had you stated this and added by the permission of Allah then perhaps this would have been a cause for Allah aiding us. Just as the book states: ‘In fact the Ummah must embrace it and proceed with it because it is the only (al-waheed) party that manifests its idea...' So ‘Al-Wahdaaniyah' (oneness/uniqueness) whilst being tied to specific attributes, I find that they are specific to Allah the Lord of the worlds and that there is no other creation that is unique beside Him. Due to this I view that the wording ‘Al-Waheed' (only) contains some fallacies within it and perhaps has delayed the victory of Allah for us.

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Baarakatuhu,

It appears that some confusion has occurred with you in respect to the meaning of the quoted text: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes that have led to the failure of the movements that were established to revive Muslims by Islam' as found in the profile.

The Hizb has mentioned this in the profile after having listed the reasons for the failure of the movements in the book At-Takattul (Structuring of a Party), in which it states: ‘Upon scrutinizing these movements and their attempts for revival, one can conclude that the causes for their failure (from a structural point of view) are due to the following four factors:

First: The movements were established upon a general undefined idea (fikrah), which was vague, or unclear. In addition, the idea lacked focus, purity, and clarity.

Second: The movements did not define a method (Tareeqah) to implement their idea; rather, they proceeded through improvised and twisted means. Furthermore, their means were undefined and ambiguous.

Third: The movements relied upon individuals who lacked full awareness, and a well-focused determination. Individuals were driven solely by their desire or zeal to work.

Fourth: The individuals carrying the responsibility of these movements did not have a correct bond amongst themselves. They were merely bound by being members in a structure that manifested itself in certain actions and titles'.

After that the Hizb made Ijtihaad and avoided all of those causes. So what is the error in the statement: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes..?' And what is the relationship of that with the fact that every created makes mistakes? And that Allah Alone is free of every deficiency?

Now I will ask you: If you were a school teacher and you said to your student after considering her answer: ‘There are shortcomings in your answer like in this and this' and then you specified the shortcomings to her as 1, 2 and 3 etc... Then the student reviewed them and avoided those shortcomings and then returned to you stating that she had avoided all of the shortcomings that you had mentioned and said: ‘O kind teacher, this is my new answer.' Thus has the student characterised herself with the attribute of Lord of the worlds?

As for the other point you raised when you quoted: ‘In fact the Ummah must embrace it and proceed with it because it is the only (Al-Waheed) party that manifests its idea...' I shall quote to you the paragraph that preceded this before discussing the paragraph that you have questioned about.

It is as follows:

‘The party understood intellectually and profoundly the idea and method from the Qur'aan, Sunnah, Ijmaa' of the Sahaabah and Qiyaas (analogy). It didn't take the reality as the source of its thinking but rather the subject of its thoughts as to change it according to the rules of Islam. It committed itself with the method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in his work to convey the Da'wah in Makkah until he established the state in Madinah. The party made the Aqeedah and what it adopted of thoughts and rules the binding that binds together its members'.

And due to that it was worthy of being embraced by the Ummah and the Ummah to proceed along with it. Indeed it is obligatory upon her to embrace it and to proceed along with it because it is the only Hizb that manifest its idea, foresees its method, understands it issue and commits itself to follow the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) without deviating from it and without letting anything dissuade it from achieving its aim'. Hizb profile quoted from the book: Hizb ut Tahrir.

You have commented upon the statement: ‘because it is the only Hizb that manifests its idea, foresees its method...' stating that the Wahdaaniyah (oneness/uniqueness) is from the attributes of the Creator (swt).

My honourable sister, this is a different topic as the Hizb does not say that it is unique or alone in every matter but rather it has deduced a thought and method correctly from the Shari'ah evidences in accordance to the principles of Usool. Therefore it is natural that it would manifest this idea that it has deduced. And the discussion is not about a person but rather about a Hizb (party) that has adopted this idea and method. So everyone who manifests/ digests this idea and method; then s/he is from the Hizb and this applies upon her/himself. As such it applies upon the Hizb that has deduced its thought and method to say that it alone is the one that digests it. This is because it is the one that had deduced it, studied it, worked for it and struggled for its sake. So what is the harm in saying that it is alone in digesting this thought? And what is the relationship between this statement and the Wahdaaniyah (oneness/uniqueness) of Allah (swt) Al-Ahad, As-Samad and to whom there is nothing that compares?

I ask Allah (swt) to provide you with the guidance to reach the best of the matter and to open your chest to that which is good and Allah (swt) is the One who guides to the correct path.

 

Your Brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

 

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

 

Read more...

Capitalism and Gender Equality Have Cheated Women of Motherhood

  • Published in Articles
  •   |  
Capitalism and Gender Equality Have Cheated Women of Motherhood

On the 6th of June, the UK Guardian published an article under the title, "The rise of ‘breadwinner moms' is less a win for equality than it looks". It was in relation to statistics from a recent report by the PEW Research Centre that in 40% of all US households with children, mothers are the sole or primary breadwinners. The employment rate of married mothers in the US is 65%. Fifty years ago, the American feminist Betty Friedan claimed in her well-known book, The Feminine Mystique that if American housewives embarked on lifelong careers, they would be happier and healthier, have better marriages, and their children would thrive. The underlying message, echoed by the voices of many feminists over the years was that it was employment rather than motherhood that could offer women true self-fulfilment, value and success in life. However, such predictions could not have been further from the truth.

Firstly, it is important to understand that the drive to push women out of their homes and into the workplace did not have its origins in the ‘emancipation of women' or in improving the quality of their lives but rather it was a vision of Western Capitalist governments, born out of securing economic gain. This capitalist agenda of striving to increase female employment, for the sake of financial interests rather than the betterment of women is exemplified by the words of the former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who stated in a speech at a conference in Peru last October entitled, "Power: Women as Drivers of Growth and Social Inclusion" that, "Restrictions on women's economic participation are costing us massive amounts of economic growth and income in every region of the world. In the Asia Pacific for example, it's more than $40 billion in lost GDP every year". Capitalists exploited the language of feminism and equality, as well as promoted narratives such as ‘empowerment through employment' for pure financial benefit. This narrative has been nothing but a capitalist and feminist lie that has cheated women of motherhood, robbed children of their rights, and had a heavy cost on the wellbeing of women.

Firstly, the feminist ‘gender equality' narrative that the roles of men and women in life should be the same, and that the value of women comes from work and financial independence from men, has created societies in the West where women no longer have the choice to work but are expected to due to social or economic pressures. This has resulted in many women delaying or avoiding having children in order to pursue a successful career, or even keep a job. There are now more women than ever having higher risk pregnancies by having their first child at 40 years old or more from fear that they would face a reduction in their earnings or lose their career for taking time out to have babies. For many women, delaying having children to such a late age often means losing out on children altogether due to reduced fertility, and increased miscarriages and pregnancy-related complications. Secondly, this drive to push mothers into the workplace has not only impacted the quality of marriages due to the limited time spent with their spouse but also led to many women feeling a deep sense of guilt over the lack of time spent with their children. In the PEW survey, almost ¾ of adults said that the increasing numbers of women working has made it harder for parents to raise children and ½ said that it has made marriages harder to succeed. In 2011, UNICEF published a report that warned that British parents were trapping their children in a cycle of "compulsive consumerism" by showering them with toys and designer clothes instead of spending quality time with them, blaming this for contributing to the riots and widespread looting which gripped the UK in the same year. Others have also attributed the lack of time spent by working mothers in nurturing their children to some of the delinquent and anti-social behaviour amongst the youth that plagues many Western societies. Thirdly, the strain of having to struggle the pressures of work with the responsibilities of home and family life has caused a significant rise in anxiety and depressive disorders in women. In a study of 30 European countries, published in 2011 by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, researchers found that depression amongst women in Europe has doubled over the last 40 years due to the ‘tremendous burden' of having to juggle family duties with the demands of work. And finally, as a consequence of capitalism and gender equality that has pushed women to adopt the roles of men and simultaneously accepted for men to forsake their role as maintainers of women, many mothers have been left with no financial security, abandoned to fend for themselves and their families with no one - not the father of their children nor the state - to provide for them. The Guardian article above states appropriately, "For single mums in particular, the reality of primary breadwinner status feels less of a feminist victory than simply being overworked, under-supported." In truth, capitalism has placed money over motherhood, and gender equality that places the man, his rights and roles as the gold standard that women are expected to aspire to has been its hand-maid.

In contrast, Islam permits the woman to work and pursue a career, and does not deny her economic ambitions, for the Prophet (saw) said, "إِنَّهُ قَدْ أُذِنَ لَكُنَّ أَنْ تَخْرُجْنَ لِحَاجَتِكُنَّ " "O women! You have been allowed by Allah (swt) to go out for your needs", however it does not define empowerment based on employment, nor value or describe the success of the woman according to how much tax she contributes to the economy. Rather the successful woman in Islam is the one who has the most taqwa and obedience to her Creator. In addition, Islam prescribes the woman a primary role in life as a wife and mother that is in accordance with her nature as the child-bearer of societies, rather than in contradiction with it. It bestows great value upon this position of the woman and gives great importance to her duty as the nurturer and educator of children and the future generation. And finally, it obliges that she and her children be protected and provided for always by her male relatives or by the state, ensuring that she is financially secured always for Allah (swt) says,

((الرِّ‌جالُ قَوّ‌ٰمونَ عَلَى النِّساءِ بِما فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعضَهُم عَلىٰ بَعضٍ وَبِما أَنفَقوا مِن أَمو‌ٰلِهِم ))

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth." [TMQ An-Nisa 4:34]

All this ensures true value, happiness, self-fulfillment, and empowerment for the woman where both she and society embraces and celebrates her nature as a woman rather than denying, sidelining, or even despising it. This is alongside securing the rights and effective upbringing of children, and relieving women of the burden of having to struggle to earn their own living or to be abandoned to beg on the streets.

 

Dr. Nazreen Nawaz

Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

Read more...

Palestine: Gaza Massive Rally in the 92nd Anniversary of the Demolition of the Khilafah

  • Published in Video
  •   |  
Palestine: Gaza Massive Rally in the 92nd Anniversary of the Demolition of the Khilafah

The rally under the title of "Khilafah "Caliphate" will Liberate Al-Aqsa, Rescue the Muslims and Save Humanity" began after the noon prayer on Wednesday, 05/06/2013 from the al-Omari Mosque filled with the flags and banners characterized by remarkable and unique organization of its kind in the Gaza Strip.

The rally perked the curiosity of the many on-lookers. The rally proudly called that the Ummah wants the return of the Khilafah "Caliphate".  Men and women called for the liberation of the Aqsa and the rescue of the Muslims and all of humanity.

Wednesday, 26 Rajab 1434 AH, corresponding to 05 June 2013

 

 

 

Read more...

Question & Answer: "Usurious Types of Food"

  • Published in Q&A
  •   |  
Question & Answer: "Usurious Types of Food"

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah:

It is mentioned in the Economic System book under the title "Riba and Currency Exchange" (p. 261; English edition p. 125) "As to the Prophet's (saw) saying: "Food for food and like for like"... So all of this do not prove that the cause of prohibition is food, but prove that usury happens in food and includes all food, so it is general. The Prophet's Hadith that is narrated by Ubadah bin as-Samit has limited the usurious types of food in: barley, wheat, dates, and salt, so the general food mentioned in the previous texts is considered in the section of general things through which is meant particularity, which are the four types of food" End.

I have two questions, please clarify them for me, and may Allah Reward you:

1. Why did we say that the Hadith narrated by Ubadah bin as-Samit in which the six types are mentioned- specifies the Hadith (food for food with like for like), although there is no conflict between the general and specific here, so as to say general through which is meant specific, where this is done to remove any conflict?

2. Why wasn't the food, the "To'm" (الطُعم) in the four types (barley, wheat, dates, and salt) considered a reason, knowing that it is a derived word, and it is also a suitable understood description?

Answer:

بالنسبة لحديث مسلم عن معمر بن عبد الله قال كُنْتُ أَسْمَعُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ: «الطَّعَامُ بِالطَّعَامِ مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ»، قَالَ: «وَكَانَ طَعَامُنَا يَوْمَئِذٍ الشَّعِيرَ»

1. According to the Hadith narrated by Muslim on authority of Ma'mar bin Abdullah that he said: I used to hear Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam saying: "food for food and like for like." He said: "Our food in those days consisted of barley." Although Ma'mar bin Abdullah mentioned the type of food at that time which was barley, but it may be said that this is what Ma'mar bin Abdullah has mentioned; yet, the text of the Hadith includes it and includes something else on the grounds that the word food is general, but we understand from it that usury can happen in all food...

أما حديث مسلم عن عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ، قَالَ: إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «يَنْهَى عَنْ بَيْعِ الذَّهَبِ بِالذَّهَبِ، وَالْفِضَّةِ بِالْفِضَّةِ، وَالْبُرِّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرِ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرِ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحِ بِالْمِلْحِ، إِلَّا سَوَاءً بِسَوَاءٍ، عَيْنًا بِعَيْنٍ، فَمَنْ زَادَ، أَوِ ازْدَادَ، فَقَدْ أَرْبَى»

As to the Hadith narrated by Muslim on authority of Ubadah bin as-Samit, that he said: I heard Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam: "forbidding selling gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt, unless it was equal amount for equal amount, like for like, whoever gives more or takes more has engaged in Riba."

It is understood that the occurrence of riba is restricted to the four types of food and does not occur in anything else, due to the wording of the Hadith indicates restriction, as it mentioned tangible nouns and it combined a conditional ruling "equal amount for equal amount, like for like..." with each word of the Hadith, so it showed that the restriction of Hukm in these types and forbade it in others...

Therefore your claim does not contradict with the Hadith: "الطعام بالطعام..." "food for food..." and the Hadith:"الذهب بالذهب..."  "gold for gold..." arose from your assumption that the Hadith regarding gold does not demonstrate restriction. If you knew that it demonstrates restriction as we have clarified above, you would have said that there is a conflict that does not allow working with the two Ahadith except by specification; as the first Hadith shows the occurrence of riba in every food, and the second Hadith shows the occurrence of riba only limited to a part of the food and not every food, rather it is in four types of food, that he combines the two Ahadith through specification.

2. As to why the word (الطعم) "To'm" derived from the word ‘food' "Ta'am" was not considered an illah (cause), especially that it is a describing concept (وصف مفهم)... The answer to this is specification of the words of the Hadith about wheat with that about (barley for barley) has transferred the derived ‘food' word to the words: barley, wheat, dates, and salt which are tangible nouns and the describing concept (وصف مفهم) cannot be in tangible nouns but in the derived words. If the Hadith were "الطعام بالطعام مثلاً بمثل" "wheat for wheat like for like", and there wasn't a specific Hadith: "...وَالْبُرِّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرِ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرِ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحِ بِالْمِلْحِ..."  "... And barley for barley, wheat for wheat, dates for dates, and salt for salt ..." If it were like that, it would have been possible to say there is a illah (cause/reason), however the specification transferred food to tangible nouns ‘barley, wheat...' If the specified were mentioned, then it will be a Hukm (ruling) that will be carried out.

This is why we say that ‘food' (at-To'm) is not an illah (cause/reason), for the mentioned riba substance.

Read more...

Palestine: Thousands Rally in Tulkarem Marking the Anniversary of the Fall of the Khilafah

  • Published in Video
  •   |  
Palestine: Thousands Rally in Tulkarem Marking the Anniversary of the Fall of the Khilafah

Hizb ut Tahrir / Palestine organized a massive rally in Tulkarem on Saturday, 29 Rajab 1434 AH corresponding to 08 June 2013, with thousands marching chanting for Khilafah "Caliphate" marking the anniversary of the destruction of the Khilafah "Caliphate" under the title of "Khilafah "Caliphate" will Liberate Al-Aqsa , Rescue the Muslims and Save Humanity."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picture Slideshow: Click Here

Read more...
Subscribe to this RSS feed

ALWAQIYAH TV

Site Categories

Links

West

Muslim Lands

Muslim Lands