A brief interview with Brother Engineer Sami Adel Tabara of the first generation, which was done on the sidelines of the annual Khilafah "Caliphate" conference organized by Hizb ut Tahrir / Europe in Amsterdam on Sunday, 30 Rajab 1434 AH, corresponding to 09 June 2013.
Question:
If a man buys a commodity for 10 thousand, he pays a portion of its price upfront and the rest through installments over a year for example. If the seller came to the buyer after the third month, for example, and told him: If you pay me the remaining money, which is five thousand for example, I will deduct one thousand, so I will collect from you four thousand only. Is this considered sale of debt with less than its cost for the sake of expediting payment or is it considered forgiveness only and not selling in debt?
And if this was permissible, how is it different from having two prices for the commodity in one contract?
Answer:
Expediting paying the postponed debt on condition of deducting part of it is not selling debt by debt, but it is in Fiqh under the category of "place and hasten" (ضعْ وتعجَّل), which means: pay some of the postponed debt, in return of expediting paying the debt.
As for debt for debt, an example is when a man lends from you one thousand dinars, and with it, you buy one hundred kilos of lentils from him, which he gives you after one month. In this case, you have sold the debt of 1000 dinars with the postponed lentils i.e. debt. This is forbidden because it is selling debt by debt; moreover, he gave the capital debt which is haram because he sold debt for debt. Furthermore, he gave the capital debt which is haram since the capital needs to be received at the beginning of the transaction.
Another example for debt by debt is when Amr has a debt of 1000 dinars from you, and Zaid has a debt from me of 100 dresses, so I tell you that I will sell you the 100 dresses with Zaid for the 1000 dinars that you have with Amr... This is selling debt by debt....
And there are other examples of selling debt by debt also called: (بيع الكالئ بالكالئ) "al-Kal'ibi al-Kal'I" or the "an-Nasee'ah by an-Nasee'ah"...(النَّسِيئَةُ بِالنَّسِيئَةِ)
Selling for other than the debtor is Haram certainly, as the Hadith of al-Hakem in his Mustadrak 'ala al-Saheehayn. Ibn Umar (raa) narrated that the Prophet (saw) "نَهَى عَنْ بَيْعِ الْكَالِئِ بِالْكَالِئِ" "forbade the selling of something to be collected later by something to be collected later". In another narration, the following is added: "هُوَ النَّسِيئَةُ بِالنَّسِيئَةِ" "it is credit (when payment is done at a later time) by credit."
As to selling of debt by debt to the debtor, there is a difference in opinion, as some say it is permissible, while others say it is forbidden.
As for your question, it is for jurists (fuqaha') as we have said under the section "place and hasten" "ضعْ وتعجَّل" that means pay some of the postponed debt as to pay all the debt or part of it quicker... And there is a difference in opinion about this question:
- Some do not permit it, and some of the evidences they refer to are:
ما أخرجه البيهقي في سننه الكبرى عَنِ الْمِقْدَادِ بْنِ الْأَسْوَدِ قَالَ: أَسْلَفْتُ رَجُلًا مِائَةَ دِينَارٍ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ سَهْمِي فِي بَعَثٍ بَعَثَهُ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقُلْتُ لَهُ: عَجِّلْ لِي تِسْعِينَ دِينَارًا وَأَحُطُّ عَشَرَةَ دَنَانِيرَ، فَقَالَ: نَعَمْ، فَذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: «أَكَلْتَ رِبًا يَا مِقْدَادُ، وَأَطْعَمْتَهُ
1- It is narrated by al-Baihaqi in his Sunnan Qubra on authority of al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad that he said: I lent a man 100 dinars, and then my arrow came from the convoy that Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam has sent, so I told him: ‘Hurry and give me 90 dinars, and I will put 10 dinars. The man said: ‘Yes, and he mentioned that to Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam so he said: "You've eaten from usury oh Miqdad, and fed from it".
(Note: Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighathat al-Lahfan: "there is weakness in the sanad (chain of narration) of the Hadith of al-Baihaqi").
2. They said that it is known that the riba (usury) of al-Jahiliyya was nothing but a postponed debt with a conditional increase, so the increase was instead of increasing the time, then Allah (swt) annulled it and made it forbidden (haram) and He (swt) said:
((وإن تبتم فلكم رءوس أموالكم))
"But if you repent, you may have your principal." They added that deducting some of the debt instead of rounded-term is also forbidden because of the impact compensation on the term, whether an increase or a decrease.
Most of the jurists from al-Hanafiyya, al-Malikiyya, al-Shafi'iyya, and al-Hanabilah said that "place and hasten" is forbidden, and Zaid bin Thabet, Ibn Umar detested it as well as others from the Tabi'in (followers).
- Some permit it, and some of the evidences they refer to are:
1. It is narrated by Ibn Abbas (raa) that he said: When the Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam wanted to banish Bani an-Nadheer, they said: O Messenger of Allah, you ordered our banishment and we have unresolved debts, so he said: "Place and hasten" narrated by al-Hakem in his Mustadrak 'ala as-Saheehayn and said this is a Hadith with Isnad Sahih.
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: لَمَّا أَرَادَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يُخْرِجَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ قَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّكَ أَمَرْتَ بِإِخْرَاجِنَا وَلَنَا عَلَى النَّاسِ دُيُونٌ لَمْ تَحِلَّ، قَالَ: «ضَعُوا وَتَعَجَّلُوا» رواه الحاكم في مستدركه على الصحيحين وقال هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ
(Note: a-Thahabi said in his Tal'khees that al-Zinji is weak, and Abdul-Aziz is not trustworthy. Ibn al-Qayyem said in Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma "Its Isnad is Hasan and no one is in it except Muslim bin Khaled al-Zinji, and his Hadith does not degenerate from the rank of Hasan").
2. The saying of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra): "Usury is nothing but postponement for me, and I will increase for you" and not "Hasten to me, and I will put for you."
قول عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنهما: "إنما الربا أَخِّرْ لي وأنا أزيدك" وليس "عَجِّلْ لي وأنا أضع عنك
The permissibility of this was narrated by Ibn Abbas, an-Nakh'i, al-Hasan, and Ibn Seereen, and this narration is from Imam Ahmad and another from al-Shafi'iyyah. This is the choice of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyem, and Ibn 'Abdeen, from the jurists of al-Hanafiyyah, has authorized it as in his footnotes of Ad-Dhor al-Mokhtar.
We do not like to adopt an opinion in this issue, thus the person with this question can follow (fa yuqalid) the opinion of the jurists (fuqaha') which s/he finds reassuring...
And as you can see this issue differs from the other issue about selling for cash or with installments. If the seller said that the price of this commodity is 1000 cash or 1,300 with installments, and it was left as a variable then it is not permissible because the price is unknown. However, if the price was specified, and the buyer said: I will buy it with a certain amount of cash money, or he said I will buy it with a certain number of installments, then this is permissible as the price is specified, and the commodity has one cost.
Question:
We have adopted that "the army, internal security, industry, and international relations" are independent departments and not sectors, so why do we use the word ‘sector' and not ‘department'? May Allah reward you.
Answer:
Yes, each one of them is an independent department, but it is an administrative department that may be named as such, however it is not related to the department of people's affairs rather it is an independent department.
Refer to the chapter: "Bayt al-Mal" State Treasury (p. 135 Arabic ed. / p. 129 English ed. The Institutions of State in the Khilafah "Caliphate"), it states the following:
"We have already adopted that the wali is given a special authority that excludes the army, judiciary and funds. Thus, the whole army will be a central department (presided over by Amir al-Jihad). The judiciary will be a central department (known as judiciary), and the entire funds form a central department (known as bayt al-mal), which is separate from any other organisation in the State, and follows the Khalifah as do the other organisations."
As you can see, it is called department even though it is an administrative section. However it is a centralized department i.e. not affiliated with the Administration department (people's affairs). Likewise, "the whole army will be a central department (presided over by Amir al-Jihad)," "The judiciary will be a central department," and "funds form a central department (known as bayt al-mal)."
Therefore each department whose work includes administration is called a department, and if there is the fear of confusion which department is considered from the departments, it is possible to add the word ‘central'. If there is no fear of confusion, then department is appropriate, and it is clear that the army, internal security, industry, and international relations are not confused with the administrative department (People's Affairs) in which each department is called a department.
Question:
Is it permissible to accept a gift from someone who earns his money through haram means (for example through gambling, riba (usury), insurance contracts, or selling wine)? And is it permissible for his family to accept his expenses from this money that is haram? Thank you very much.
Answer:
There are types of haram:
- Haram in and of itself such as wine... It is haram to gift with it, so it is forbidden (haram) for the owner of the wine and for the one whom the gift is for. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «حُرِّمَتِ الْخَمْرُ بِعَيْنِهَا» "Khamr was forbidden in and of itself." (Extracted by an-Nasa'i)
- Haram for it is a human being's right (Haq) that is stolen or taken forcefully... This is forbidden (haram) for the thief and the usurper, in which it is not permissible to gift as it is haram for the one who took the money from it and for the recipient of the gift. This money is the right of its possessor, and wherever he is, the money must be returned to the rightful owner. Some of the evidences for this are:
أخرج أحمد عَنْ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: إِذَا سُرِقَ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ مَتَاعٌ، أَوْ ضَاعَ لَهُ مَتَاعٌ، فَوَجَدَهُ بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهِ، وَيَرْجِعُ الْمُشْتَرِي عَلَى الْبَائِعِ بِالثَّمَنِ
Ahmad has narrated on authority of Samurah that he said: The Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam said: "If a man has something stolen from him, or loses something, and he finds it in the possession of a man who bought it, then he has more right to it, and the one who bought it should ask for his money back from the one who sold it to him."
This is a text that shows that stolen money must be returned to its owner.
Money by force is also guaranteed to the one from whom it was forced, so the usurper must return whatever taken by force to its possessor.
عَنْ سَمُرَةَ، عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «عَلَى اليَدِ مَا أَخَذَتْ حَتَّى تُؤَدِّيَ»، أخرجه الترمذي وقال هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ
It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet (saw) said: "The hand which takes is responsible till it pays," narrated by at-Tirmidhi and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.
- Haram for batil (invalid) transactions such as the money of usury and gambling... This is forbidden only for the one who received it, but the haram does not extend to the one who received the money through a permissible manner from the one who commits riba or gambles. For example, selling the one who deals with riba goods and receiving their cost, the wife receiving her expenses from her husband who deals with usury, the one who deals with riba brings a gift to one of his relatives, or any other permissible transactions. The sin for this haram money applies on the who dealt with usury and neither on the one who attains the price of his goods, nor on the wife receiving her expenses, or the one receiving a gift, and that is because the haram does not regard two people in this state. Some evidences on that are:
1. Allah (swt) said: ((وَلَا تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلَّا عَلَيْهَا وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى)) "And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another."
2. The Prophet (saw) used to deal with the Jews in Madinah, with the knowledge that most of their money was from riba. Allah (swt) said:
فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا* وَأَخْذِهِمُ الرِّبَا وَقَدْ نُهُوا عَنْهُ وَأَكْلِهِمْ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ
"For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people]* And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people's wealth unjustly." The Prophet (saw) used to accept gifts from them.
ورد عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنَ الْيَهُودِ أَهْدَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ شَاةً مَسْمُومَةً، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيْهَا، فَقَالَ: «مَا حَمَلَكِ عَلَى مَا صَنَعْتِ؟» قَالَتْ: أَحْبَبْتُ - أَوْ أرَدْتُ - إِنْ كُنْتَ نَبِيًّا فَإِنَّ اللهَ سَيُطْلِعُكَ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ نَبِيًّا أُرِيحُ النَّاسَ مِنْكَ.
It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that a woman from the Jews gave the Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam a poisoned sheep, so he sent to her and said: "What induced you to do what you have done?" She said: "I liked - or I wanted- if you were a prophet, Allah will tell you, but if you were not a prophet, I should rid the people of you."
3. Some of the Sahaba and Tabi'een made it permissible to receive gifts from the one who takes riba:
جاء رجل إلى ابن مسعود فَقَالَ: إِنَّ لِي جَارًا يَأْكُلُ الرِّبَا، وَإِنَّهُ لَا يَزَالُ يَدْعُونِي، فَقَالَ: "مَهْنَؤُهُ لَكَ وَإِثْمُهُ عَلَيْهِ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه
A) A man came to Ibn Masoud and said: I have a neighbor who eats from usury, and he still invites me, so Ibn Masoud said: "the good deed is for you, and the sin is for him" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf.
B) Al-Hassan was asked: Can the food of moneychangers be eaten? He said: "Allah (swt) has told you about the Jews and an-Nasara, they used to eat from usury, and He made their food permissible for you" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
وسُئِلَ الْحَسَنُ أَيُؤْكَلُ طَعَامُ الصَّيَارِفَةِ؟ فَقَالَ: "قَدْ أَخبرَكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى، إِنَّهُمْ يَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا، وَأَحَلَّ لَكُمْ طَعَامَهُمْ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه عن معمر
C) It was narrated by Mansour that he said: I told Ibrahim: I went to a worker's place, so he hosted me and offered me money. Ibrahim said: "Accept", so Mansour said: the worker takes usury. Ibrahim said: "Accept as long as you did not command him or help in his usury" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِإِبْرَاهِيمَ: نَزَلْتُ بِعَامِلٍ، فَنَزَلَنِي وَأَجَازَنِي قَالَ: "اقْبَلْ" ، قُلْتُ: فَصَاحِبُ رِبًا قَالَ: "اقْبَلْ مَا لَمْ تَأْمُرْهُ أَوْ تُعِنْهُ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه عن معمر
4. However, it is better not to deal with possessors of forbidden (haram) money that stemmed from usury, so you neither sell them nor accept a gift from them motivated by piety; so the seller will not receive profit from his riba-contaminated merchandise, and do not accept their gift so that it won't be from the money of usury. In this way, Muslims distance themselves from everything that is impure, and the Companions of the Messenger (saw) used to refrain from several permissible domains (Mubahat) for fear of approaching the haram.
أنه قال لَا يَبْلُغُ العَبْدُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ المُتَّقِينَ حَتَّى يَدَعَ مَا لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ حَذَرًا لِمَا بِهِ البَأْسُ
It was narrated from the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he said: "No one will attain complete righteousness until he abandons (certain) unobjectionable (but doubtful) things so as to remain on his guard against something objectionable."
Narrated by at-Tirmidhi, and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.
In conclusion, it is permissible to sell the one who takes usury from the banks or other places, and it is permissible to accept his gift, but it is better neither to sell him nor to accept his gift.
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:
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
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
Peace be upon those who tread the path of guidance,
We send this letter to you regarding your commitment to strengthening ties with America that you made even before taking your oath of office, an oath which you finally took on 5 June 2013.
