Saturday, 24 Muharram 1447 | 2025/07/19
Time now: (M.M.T)
Menu
Main menu
Main menu

Minister of Interior: Afghan Government is at the Hand of the Wolves

  • Published in News & Comment
  •   |  

News:

Afghanistan's Parliament voted on Monday July 22, 2013 to disqualify one of the country's top security chiefs by impeaching the blow of expected withdrawal in 2014. "Afghan government is now at the hand of the wolves and I am alone unable to remove them." Said General Ghulam Mujtaba Patang, "The Government and Parliament should have a closer coordination in order to remove the wolves who actually rule all 3 forces of the country."

Comment:

A wolf speaking to other wolves clearly reflects their further coordination and assistance in making proper preys. Particularly, when the Halal and Haram bases as the sole standard of actions are replaced by limited human intellect and man-made laws. It is therefore that wolves, tigers and other prey seekers will dominant the space. Do the Government and the Parliament not call themselves defender of Islam and Muslims? Truly, they do so, but forgotten what Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned in His Book:

((وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَن ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنكاً وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَعْمَى))

"Whoever turns from my Zikr (Sharia, Ideology, and Way of Life), I'll give them constricted lives and they'll be blind on the Day of Judgment." [Taha: 124]

The preliminary students of Democracy in Afghanistan, occasionally admits the results of Capitalist Democracy in Afghan society. Similarly to what Gen. Ghulam Mujtaba Patang has clearly said in order to achieve the so called confidence vote of Parliament.

As well, every single seat in the ministries has its specific price among the MPs and the government. Furthermore, every directorate inside ministries along with local offices in the provinces has their special prices. Inside the Ministry of Interior under Gen. Mujtaba Patand, its headquarters and its sub-offices have their specific prices. Even check-posts inside cities, streets and vendors have to pay the government thugs.

Similarly, according to the report released by the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime in Afghanistan on Thursday, 07 February 2013, bribes paid in the country in 2012 totaled 3.9 billion USD, almost a quarter of the entire amount of aid the international community has pledged to Afghanistan in the Tokyo Conference equaling to the country's GDP from the last two years. However the total amount of the bribes paid to the officials in 2010 tolled to a sum of $2.5 billion.

Similar to that, on the 5th of December, 2012, in its new yearly report, Transparency International, an organization which does research and publishes reports on corruption, has titled Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea the most corrupt countries of the world. The report published in 2012, Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea got eight marks out of a hundred, and however, in the year 2011 and 2010 Afghanistan's position was listed as second receiving 15 and 11 marks respectively.

New York Times in its issue of April, stated that for more than a decade, bundles of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan's president. They were used for influencing ex-Mujahidin leaders or current democrats. All speak of tens of millions of dollars having flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. "We called it ‘ghost money,' " said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai's Deputy in Chief of Staff from 2002 until 2005. "The US is the main supporter of corruption in Afghanistan," said a US official. Various reports, published in recent years exposed millions of dollars called "Ghost Money" that are dropped off to the president's office by Iran and other countries in order to ensure their interest.

By considering the following points it becomes clear that both the Afghan Government and Crusaders admitted the existence of high scale corruption in the country, which is a direct result of implementing Capitalist Democracy. Hamid Karzai, the head of this broken regime after the escape of his Central Bank Chairman to the US said: "Individuals with dual citizenship do what they wish, then after corruption, they take their way to Washington, London, Paris and elsewhere." Moreover, Colonialist occupiers did not confine only in institutionalizing the corruption, but they went further, even that Gen. David Petraeus called the current corruption in Afghanistan as the historic heritage of Afghan Society. Meanwhile, the corruption that we observe today in Afghanistan, has never been seen throughout the history and they have no evidence to confirm it.

Such despondent situation in Afghanistan is the product of western invasions, Capitalistic ideas and democratic system, in the last twelve years.  Because the crusaders invaders under the leadership of United States have not only invaded Afghanistan militarily rather the onslaught was ideological, cultural, political and economic in nature that changed the mindset of those Afghans that are part of the system to abandon Islamic Shariah as their sources to determine right and wrong. They were made to believe that they should decide their matter on the yard stick of ‘benefit' rather then what is prescribed and what is forbidden by the Islamic Shariah. Blessing and honor are made to search in the western values of materialism then Islam, which is to get the pleasure of Allah (swt). This whole malicious agenda is implemented by the Afghan government, propagated through the western backed media and sponsored by the crusaders both financially and militarily. This capitalistic ideology has only focused on few elites and has changed their lives, leaving the majority of the population in poverty, lawlessness and chaos.

The destruction of manmade system is not only the financial and administrative chaos rather has badly affected other spheres of life. For example, when communists use to take over a territory they use to kill almost 30% of their inhabitants through poverty, oppression, killings etc. Capitalism on other hand has caused two World Wars killing millions of human beings. Even today we witness western countries facing dire economic problems for which they can't find a viable solution.

Moreover, other problems that are there in other social spheres of life and have disturbed the whole social fabric are homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, soaring divorce rates etc are few just examples. However, if we look at the 1300 years history of Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" such problems, wars, mass killings of innocent human beings, sexual deviations and other such crimes were nonexistent.

It's not only Afghanistan that is suffering from all these ills due to western democracy and capitalism rather we see Iraq and Somalia also facing the same situation. Such manmade system has spread the behaviors called {eating of "suht"} among some Muslims, which means earning and devouring the forbidden that was the attitude of the cursed ones at the time of the Prophet (saw). For the Islamic Ummah the root cause of these difficulties and sufferings is the implementation of manmade ideologies instead of Islam.

We call upon you O' Noble Ummah of Muhammad (saw) to rise up and join Hizb ut Tahrir for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" following the methodology of the Prophet (saw).

((أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ بَدَّلُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ كُفْراً وَأَحَلُّواْ قَوْمَهُمْ دَارَ الْبَوَارِ ‏* ‏ جَهَنَّمَ يَصْلَوْنَهَا وَبِئْسَ الْقَرَارُ ‏))

"Have you not seen those who have changed Allah's favor for ungratefulness and made their people to alight into the abode of perdition * into hell they will burn therein, - an evil place to stay in!" [Ibrahim: 28-9]

 

Saifullah Mustanir

Kabul, Wilayah Afghanistan

Read more...

The Answer to the Question: 1. Hukm al-Qadaa'iy (Judicial ruling) 2. Bir al-Walidain (dutifulness to parents) To Fethi Marouani

  • Published in Q&A
  •   |  

Question:

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu

It is mentioned in the book, The Islamic State, on p.140: [Every person holding the citizenship of the State enjoys the full rights decreed for him by the Shari'ah, whether he is Muslim or not. Anyone not holding that citizenship is deprived of these rights, even if he were Muslim. For instance, if a Muslim man had a Christian mother who held the Islamic citizenship and a father who did not, then his mother would qualify to receive sustenance from him and his father would not. If the mother claimed it from him the judge would rule in her favour because she would be classified as a citizen of the Islamic State, whereas if the father attempted to do likewise the judge would reject his claim because he would not be classified as one of its citizens].

And the question here is: Irrespective of the person being Muslim or non-Muslim and irrespective of him holding citizenship for the Islamic State or not, is not obligatory upon the person to be dutiful to his parents (Bir al-Walidain)? And lower to them a wing of humility in mercy... And if this person commits violations and infringes upon individuals outside of the authority of the State who are foreigners and do not hold citizenship. Then these come to raise a complaint, will the Qadi (judge) dismiss their case on the basis of the argument that they do not carry the citizenship? Please clarify in detail. May Allah reward you with all goodness.

wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

 

Answer:

wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

There are two issues that are separate from one another: The Judicial ruling and Bir al-Walidain:

As for the first matter: The request of a person who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship to receive Nafaqah (financial spending) from family and relatives in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is because the difference in the Dar (homeland) diverts the financial rights from being obligatory. This is as the financial rights do not belong to those who are in Dar ul-Harb because the Messenger (saw) said in the Hadith extracted by Muslim narrated by Suleiman Bin Buraidah narrated from his father said:

كان رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم  إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْراً، ثُمَّ قَالَ... ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ....

"When the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him, he said.... Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and tell them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' unless they fight alongside the Muslims..."

And the statement of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the Hadith: وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ "...but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' (booty)" means that their refraining from migrating or joining (to the Dar of the Muhajireen) causes them to lose their right to benefit from the booty and spoils of war. All other types of funds are included by this in analogy to the booty and spoils of war, i.e. that their financial rights are withheld. Therefore, the Muslim who rejects moving to the Dar ul-Muhajireen if it exists according to the Shariah rules of the Hijrah and still retains the citizenship of the disbelieving (Kaffir) state, then this Muslim in relation to the rulings of money is like non-Muslims in respect of their exclusion from attaining its rights i.e. financial rights. So he does not have that which the Muslims possess (of rights) and he is not obliged with what the Muslims are (in terms of responsibilities). This means that the financial rules are not applied upon him because he did not move to the land (Dar) of the Muhajireen.

Therefore the claim of the father who resides in Dar ul-Harb upon his son who resides in Dar ul-Islam if it is a claim relating to a financial right like Nafaqah, then this claim is not accepted because of the differences in Dars (lands) which prevent the obligatory financial rights. This all relates to the first matter i.e. the judicial judgment in regards to financial rights.

As for the second matter which is Bir al-Walidain (dutifulness to parents), then this is a different matter as the differences in lands does not prevent being dutiful to the parents and maintaining ties with them. The evidence for this is the statement of Allah (swt):

(وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَى أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا)

"And we have enjoined on man to be good and dutiful to his parents, but if they strive to make you join with Me (in worship) anything (as a partner) of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not. Unto Me is your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do." [Al-Ankabut: 8]

Also what was collected by Al-Bukhari as narrated by Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (ra) who said: "My mother came to visit me at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and she was a Mushrik. So I consulted the Messenger of Allah, (saw) and asked him, ‘My mother wants to visit me and expects me to treat her kindly; should I uphold the ties of kinship with my mother?' He said, «نَعَمْ صِلِي أُمَّكِ» ‘Yes, uphold the ties of kinship with your mother'."

As for your question in regards to criminal acts, infringements and their like then this has different Ahkam (rulings). The difference in the Dar (land) does not prevent that but rather it is dealt with according to the specific Shariah rules with consideration of whether the land is in an actual belligerent state of war or potentially belligerent state or states with treaties, etc.

So for example the following Ayah:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَأً وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَأً فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا فَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا

 

"And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise." [An-Nisaa: 92]

So the Ayah views that if the Muslim kills a Muslim by mistake in Dar ul-Harb Al-Fi'liyah (in actual state of war) (قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ) i.e. people who are your enemies, then the ruling is: (فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍto free a believing slave'. And if he killed a Muslim from Dar ul-Harb that has a treaty with the Muslims i.e. from a people you have a treaty with, (قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ) then the ruling is: (فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ) "then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah." Therefore the financial rights differ from other matters and indeed the financial rights sometimes differ within the very same Dar (land). So for example, a Muslim does not inherit from a Kaffir and the Kaffir does not inherit from a Muslim even if both the Kaffir and Muslim both resided in Dar ul-Islam. The Messenger (saw) said: «وَلاَ يَرِثُ الْقَاتِلُ شَيْئاً» "And the killer does not inherit anything." (Abu Dawood). And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "The Kaffir does not inherit the Muslim and the Muslim does not the Kaffir." (Ahmad)

In conclusion, the Muslim who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship and he has rejected to move to Dar ul-Islam when it is in existence, his claim for financial rights upon his son who live in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is different to being dutiful to parents (Bir al-Walidain) and maintaining ties with them so the Muslim son is dutiful to his disbelieving parents and is good to them as long as they do not strive to make you associate partners to Allah (swt) or anything related like if the parent was to fight in the army who was actually engaging in warring in which case there are other Shariah rules...

 

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

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

Read more...

Wilayah Turkey: Ramadan Activities to Denounce the Syrian Government's Crimes

  • Published in Video
  •   |  

 

Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Turkey members organized an Iftaar as part of the activities for the support of the Muslims in Syria and to condemn the massacres and terrorism caused by the Syrian regime against the Muslims in Syria. More than 1500 Muslim men and women attended these activities before the Syrian Embassy in Ankara.

Sunday, 12 Ramadan 1434 AH corresponding to 21 July 2013 CE

 

 


Picture Slideshow: Click Here

 


(1) Invitation to the Attendees

 

 

 

(2) Invitation to the Attendees

 

Read more...

Abbottabad Commission Report and the next Chief of Army Staff

  • Published in Analysis
  •   |  

On Saturday 20th of July, the government of Pakistan announced it was contemplating on releasing a copy of the 336-page Abbottabad Commission Report on the country's intelligence failures during the killing of Osama bin Laden. Despite government deliberations on whether to release the report or not, the leaked version has done irreparable damage to standing of the armed forces and to a lesser extent the civilian leadership.

The report paints a damning picture about the conduct of the government and the military over the past decade or so in their collective failure to detect Osama bin Laden. Extracts from the report such as "breath-taking incompetence and irresponsibility" and "culpable negligence and incompetence at almost all levels of government" is extremely critical of the civilian and military leadership. Nonetheless, it is the blame apportioned to the intelligence community that resonates most for many Pakistanis. The report states: "It is a glaring testimony to the collective incompetence and negligence, at the very least, of the security and intelligence community in the Abbottabad area".  Yet despite such glaring criticisms both the government and the military go about their business as if it is business as usual. Nothing epitomises this better than the current debate about who will succeed Ashfaq Parvez Kayani  the current Chief of Army Staff (COAS) after he retires on November 28, 2013.

But before we address this topic the issue of culpability of Pakistan's military leaders behind the Abbotabad fiasco has to be addressed. There are three principal figures that need to be tried for this humiliating event namely: Musharraf, his protégé Kayani and his accomplice Pasha. Musharraf is the principal architect behind the intelligence failures. He established the edifice for Pakistan's co-operation with the Americans in 2001. This mainly consisted of Pakistani armed forces either looking the other way or being complicit with America, as she prosecuted her war on terror inside Pakistan with impunity.  After Musharraf's ouster from office, the mantle of subjugating Pakistani armed forces to America's whim was given to the present COAS, Ashfaq Kayani (the former ISI Chief under Musharraf) who ostensibly appeared more enthusiastic than ever to help America entrench its tentacles deeper into Pakistan. During his tenure as COAS, Kayani was aided and abetted by the ISI Chief Shuja Pasha in making sure that the Pakistani army  was unable to mount an effective response prior to, during and in the aftermath of the US forces raid into Abbotabad.

None of these principal culprits have been tried. The Abbottabad Commission cowardly shies away from holding the three responsible for any crimes committed against the Pakistani state. Not even the lesser charge of dismissing Kayani for gross incompetence gets a mention. Hence assertions in the report such as describing America's Abbotabad operation as "act of war" or "a criminal act of murder" is no more than fiery rhetoric and a  great diversion from the naked truth about the treachery committed by the three perpetrators.

Without bringing the three army leaders to justice, no one will ever know who else was involved in rendering the Pakistani armed forces ineffective and paralysed during the Abbotabad raid. This is very important and it brings me to the next point-who should be the next COAS.  Nawaz Sharif has to find a replacement for Kayani when he retires from office in a few months. Nawaz Sharif should be weary. After all he was removed twice by Gen Waheed Kakar and Gen Pervez Musharraf during his two previous terms in office. At present three names that are being touted: Lt Gen Haroon Aslam, Lt Gen Rashad Mahmood and Lt. Gen Raheel Sharif. But we will never know what role-if any- these individuals played in supporting Musharraf, Kayani and Pasha in the Abbotabad debacle. More importantly, we will never know whether these candidates have supported or abstained from joining America's war on terror, which includes: military operations into the tribal areas at the behest of the Americans, American drone strikes, the Raymond Davis affair, abduction of Aafia Siddiqui, and American attempts to undermine Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The only significant factor in assessing their candidature appears to be how pro-American they are compared to their predecessors-all of whom have served their American masters with distinction. This then implies there will be no change in the mindset of the military leadership and it will continue its subservience to America. This will bring more misfortunes like the Abbotabad incident, spawn greater inquiries and reports, but will produce no substantive action to thwart the on-going humiliation suffered at the hands of Pax-Americana.


Some have sought to upend Pakistan's close military ties to America, and instead of being treated as heroes are swiftly incarcerated and charged with treason. The case of Brigadier Ali is a noteworthy example. While this may seem an oddity in armed forces dominated by America, it does represent an emerging trend across the Muslim world and is not confined to the shores of Pakistan. Army officers have tried similar feats in Bangladesh, Egypt, Syria, Turkey etc. to break America's stranglehold over their people but have not succeeded to date.  Washington's effort to seek out and promote pro-American officers ahead of others is a double edged sword. Adhering to such scripts means that governments and militaries throughout the Muslim world run the increasing risk of being toppled by anti-American officers whose loyalties lie with Islam and not with the West or her surrogates. For American analysts like Bruce Riedel and John R. Schmidt it is only a matter of time before this happens to Pakistan. This is what Riedel had to say: "We face the potential of a nuclear-armed state run by Islamic extremists."

 

Abed Mostapha

Read more...

Rohingya Muslim Women and Children Refugees Face another Phase of Oppression in Thailand as the International Community and Muslim Regimes Watch on Silent

On the 22nd of July, the South China Morning Post reported that 18 Rohingya Muslim women and children had fled the Phang Nga refugee shelter in Phuket, Thailand to Malaysia. The appalling overcrowded conditions of these Thai refugee camps have been described as worse than Thai prisons. One of the refugees who fled was reportedly pregnant.

Read more...

Media Office in Palestine: Masjid al Aqsa's Second Jumaa in Ramadan

  • Published in Pictures
  •   |  

Hizb ut Tahrir members and supporters continue to decorate Masjid al Aqsa's courtyards with its banners, posters, and flags.  On July 19, 2013, speakers delivered speeches concerning Muslims situations especially about the events in Egypt. Every Friday in Ramadan, banners with slogans reading, "Khilafah "Caliphate" will liberate the Aqsa, rescue the Muslims, and save humanity" filled the courtyards of the mosque.  More than 400,000 worshippers attended the Jumaah prayer, many took pictures of the banners and slogans.  Alhamdulillah, the events were to its fullest and representative of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir Dr. Maher Jabari had participated in the events.  The events concluded with duaa to reestablish the Khilafah "Caliphate" on the methodology of the Prophethood.

Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Palestine

 


Picture Slideshow: Click Here

Read more...

The Answer to the Question: The Hukm of the Haram money after Taubah (Repentance) To Tamir Al-Hajj Muhammad

  • Published in Q&A
  •   |  

Question:

To the Scholar Ata Ibn Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah, may Allah Protect you. As-Salaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah:

What is the Hukm (Islamic ruling) concerning the Haram money after Taubah like the money that has come by means of interest, stealing, vulgar singing, or other than that?

Is their specification or is the Hukm singular?

And if the money was Haram and even if the one who possessed it had sought repentance (Taubah) there could be a person that wishes to make Taubah but fears the loss of his wealth... So is there in this an exception so that his Taubah is coveted like some of the Sheikhs have stated?

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Assallam Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu,

Allah (swt) says:

((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا تُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ تَوْبَةً نَصُوحًا))

"O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance."

And He (swt) has said:

((إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَاعْتَصَمُوا بِاللَّهِ وَأَخْلَصُوا دِينَهُمْ لِلَّهِ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَسَوْفَ يُؤْتِ اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا))

"Except for those who make Taubah (repentance) and correct and hold fast to Allah and make their Deen purely for Allah, then those who do this are with the believers and Allah will provide the believers with a great reward."

At-Tirmidhi extracted a Hadith narrated by Anas Bin Malik (ra) from the Prophet (saw):

«كُلُّ ابْنِ آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ»

"Every son of Adam errs (sins) and the best of those who sin are those who repent."

And in order for the Taubah to be valid and for Allah (swt) to forgive the one who repents his sin, then it is obligatory for the one repenting to remove himself from the sinful act of disobedience, and regret disobeying Him (swt) in this act that he had done in the past and resolve a decisive firm determination to never return to the like of that act.

And if that act of disobedience was connected to the right of another person then it is a condition to return that unjust act to its people or receive exoneration from them. So if he has property (wealth) that he has taken from them by stealing or illegitimate usurpation then it is obligatory to return the property to its rightful owner and to rid of this unlawful gain according to the Shar'i manner. This is because acquiring funds (property, wealth) through Haram means carries severe consequences. Ahmad extracted a Hadith narrated by Abdullah Ibn Masoud (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «...وَلَا يَكْسِبُ عَبْدٌ مَالًا مِنْ حَرَامٍ... إِلَّا كَانَ زَادَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ» "And a servant does not acquire money from Haram except that it would be a provision for him in the fire."

At-Tirmidhi extracted from Ka'ab Bin Ujrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «يَا كَعْبَ بْنَ عُجْرَةَ، إِنَّهُ لَا يَرْبُو لَحْمٌ نَبَتَ مِنْ سُحْتٍ إِلَّا كَانَتِ النَّارُ أَوْلَى بِهِ». "O Ka'ab no morsel (i.e. anything) that comes by way of Suht (illicit money) brings profit except that that the fire has more right to it."

 

So how does this person you ask about want to repent while he retains the Haram money in his possession?! This is not Taubah but rather this is a continuation of the bad. So I advise him to make Taubah and rid himself from the Haram gain in accordance to the Shar'a (Islamic Law). And to return the Haram money that he stole or usurped to its rightful owners, requests their pardon and seeks forgiveness from Allah firstly and lastly. Allah (swt) is Ar-Razzaaq (the One who provides all sustenance) and Possessor of the Insurmountable Power (Al-Quwwah Al-Mateen) and if He (swt) Wills to compensate him with wholesome and blessed wealth which He will honour him with in this life and the next. And Allah (swt) loves the Taubah of His slave if he is truthful and sincere. He will reward him with the fullest of reward.

I ask Allah (swt) to guide this man to the rightly guided course in this matter so that he makes seeks repentance sincerely and Allah (swt) is the most giving in His Forgiveness.

 

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

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

Read more...

Dubai Police Chief Gives Tidings of the Khilafah in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques

The statement of Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan regarding the Khilafah "Caliphate" has sparked much controversy and debate, and this statement was in an episode recorded by Rotana channel prior to month of Ramadan, was aired on Saturday, July 13, 2013, and in this statement he said the following: "If the Righteous Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate" is to be established, it must be launched from the land of the two Holy Mosques - Saudi Arabia - just as it had started, it will return from here once more"...

Read more...
Subscribe to this RSS feed

Site Categories

Links

West

Muslim Lands

Muslim Lands