Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Turkey organized a seminar in the city of Ankara, entitled "Hizb ut Tahrir and the Caliphate". Brother Yilmaz Celik, Brother Muhammad Hanefi Yagmur, and Brother Bayram Sagnak spoke at the seminar.
Sunday, 23 Rajab 1434 AH, corresponding to 02 June 2013
For more information: Click Here
.jpg)
Picture Slideshow: Click Here
With each passing day, the depth and breadth of Iran's support for Assad's floundering regime becomes ever more apparent. The latest news to emerge from Syria is that sophisticated technology supplied by Russia and Iran is boosting Assad's chances of staging a comeback against the brave opposition fighters. Equally revealing is the magnitude of the assistance provided by Hezbollah to Assad's brutal war machine. Hezbollah fighters deeply entrenched with Assad's men are engaged in several battles in and around Damascus, and near strategic town of Qusayer and elsewhere.
Over the past several months both Iran and Hizb-e-Iran (Hezbollah) have categorically denied their involvement in propping-up Assad's tyrannical rule, but now they openly embrace Assad as if he is part of their family. Together they have redoubled their efforts to shed Muslim blood on an unimaginable scale, and in the process have committed horrific war crimes.
The focus of their anger is directed towards the Sunni population of Syria whom they regard as an existential threat to their influence. Indeed, Hizb-e-Iran views the Islamic character of the uprising with deep trepidation. Recently, Nasrallah used the term ‘takfiri' to describe the Islamic threat emerging from Syria and as a justification for intervention. This is ironic, as he chooses to embrace a Shia heretic Assad who is an Alawaite, and mainstream Shias consider Alawaites infidels.
Meanwhile, Tehran has thrown in its lot with the heretical regime of Assad and is petrified by the Islamic resurgence in Syria. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, "We will not allow the Syrian government to be overthrown."
But if anyone had any doubt about the sincerity of Iran and its surrogate Hizb-e-Iran in defending the interests of the Islamic world they should look no further than Israel's attack on Damascus last month. Both were unashamedly exposed as they stuttered to offer a muzzled response. They clearly preferred the killing of Syrians instead of fighting their sworn enemy - the Jewish state. Yet, this is not the first time that Iran in particular has failed to come to the aid of the Muslim Ummah. The two Gulf wars, America's occupation of Afghanistan and Israel's war with Lebanon is ample of evidence of Tehran's duplicity and inactivity in defending the interests of the Islam.
While Iran is no friend of Sunni Islam, Tehran's treatment of fellow Shias is equally damming. In the second Gulf war, Tehran watched silently as the Americans fought and killed Shias in the cities of Najaf and Karbala. Tehran's apathy was repeated again in 2006, when Israel attacked Lebanon. During the war, Tehran did not even come to the aid of its staunchest ally Hezbollah and only offered moral support. In all of these examples, Tehran was only concerned with fortifying the hegemony of America and Israel.
The Shia leadership of the present is of the same ilk as the Shia leadership of the past. They prefer to side with the enemies of Islam, and do not care what happens to Sunnis or Shias. In the thirteenth century, Iben Al-Alqami a Shia politician and part of the Caliph al-Mustasim political entourage betrayed the Caliph and sided with Hulagu Khan by offering him intelligence and advice. Alqami's treachery allowed Hulagu Khan to ransack Baghdad and in the ensuing slaughter Hulagu's army did not differentiate between the killing of Sunnis or Shias. Ibn Katheer then says, "After the Caliph was killed, they went and stormed through the country, killing everyone they were able to from men, women, and children, old and young, sick and healthy....The killing continued until it was said that the number of dead reached one million eight thousand bodies."
Shias should deeply reflect on the actions of their present leadership and they must resist in getting drawn into sectarian conflicts that only benefit foreign powers and their surrogates in Iran and Hizb-e-Iran. Rather they should support the re-establishment of the rightly guided Caliphate, where they can live in peace as citizens of the Islamic state and wait for the return of the Mahdi.
Abed Mostapha
Event:
The Standard newspaper reported on May 30th 2013 that angry MPs have vowed to slash President Uhuru's salary and substantially reduce budgetary allocations to plunge independent commissions into a cash crisis as retaliation for opposition to their higher salaries. A group of lawmakers who have been leading calls for higher salaries with the tacit backing of a majority of Parliament warned they could hit back as early as Tuesday, when the National Assembly resumes after a brief break to begin budget approval hearings. The furious MPs are angry about opposition to them earning Shs. 850,000 monthly salary than Shs. 532,000 set by salaries commission. In a further blow for MPs late on Thursday, the high court ordered that MPs continue to earn the set salary until a suit filed before it is determined. The MPs intend to lower value-added tax (VAT), remove income tax for Kenyans earning Shs. 50,000 and below, and reduce the fuel levy. They plan this under the guise of helping out ordinary Kenyans, but in reality the intention is to blackmail Government. The lawmakers insisted that their idea was to "help the President and his government to reduce the public wage bill and free up resources for development".
Comment:
Members of Parliament have a long and dubious history of arm-twisting the Government in their quest for higher salaries and allowances. In January this year, the outgoing MPs forced the then Finance Minister Njeru Githae to effect an amendment to enable them take home millions of shillings as a golden send-off. This was, however, turned down by President Kibaki. Had the president agreed, each MP would have taken home at least Shs. 9.3 million. In addition, each of them would have gotten an armed bodyguard, a diplomatic passport and unlimited access to the executive lounge in all the airports within Kenya. This is in addition to a state funeral upon death!! In the late-night deal, the lawmakers quietly amended the law to be paid gratuity at 31 per cent of their Shs. 200,000 basic monthly salary for every year in service until August 27 2010 when the new Constitution was promulgated. After that date, until the end of their term, they passed that the 31 per cent should be on their gross pay of Shs. 851,000 per month for every year worked! All this happens while ordinary Kenyans are wallowing in poverty, they are under constant siege from marauding gangs in the continuing crime wave, the infrastructure has not been fully repaired in areas that experienced the recent floods, the health sector is already in ICU etc. This has been occasioned by the greed that emanates from the Capitalist ideology whose measure of things is benefit. Despite representing various political parties, self interest has united MPs to demand for higher salaries. The system is rigged against the poor as MPs are among the privileged few who had and still have the power to determine their own salaries!! In Islam, the salary to be paid to a worker is determined by the benefit derived from his/her effort and not merely based on a title as the MPs want. It is only in a Khilafah "Caliphate" state that the discrepancies in salary structures can be addressed as we all know that it is a matter of time before the Kenya government gives in to the demands by MPs.
Kassim Agesa
Member of Media Office Hizb ut Tahrir East Africa
Question Four:
I read in The Islamic Personality Volume One: "It is not allowed on the part of the Messenger (saw) that he be a Mujtahid", and I read in The Introduction to the Draft Constitution Part Two: "The Prophet (saw) spent the money from the fai' (war gains) according to his opinion and ijtihad and he spent the money from the jizya (tax for non-Muslims) according to his opinion and ijtihad and he spent the money from the kharaj (agricultural tax) which came from the countries according to his opinion and ijtihad. The Shariah text came and left it for the Messenger (saw) to spend the money as he saw fit, and that was evidence that the Imam can divert these funds according to his opinion and ijtihad, because the action of the Messenger (saw) in doing so is Shar'ii evidence. So it is up to the Imam to divert the funds according to his opinion and ijtihad." The End.
It is as if there is a contradiction between them, could you please explain?
Answer:
There is no contradiction between what is written in The Islamic Personality Volume One and The Introduction to the Draft Constitution Part Two:
Regarding what is written in The Islamic Personality Volume One "It is not allowed on the part of the Messenger (saw) that he be a Mujtahid", the evidences are explained in The Islamic Personality in that chapter. These are clear and correct evidences regarding this issue as Allah (swt) says: {قُلْ إِنَّمَا أُنْذِرُكُمْ بِالْوَحْي} "Say, I only warn you by revelation." [TMQ: 21:45]
In other words, tell them O Mohammad that I only warn you with the revelation that is sent down to me. Meaning, my warning to you is limited to revelation. And Allah (swt) says in Surah al-Najm: [وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى* إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى ]
"Nor does he speak from (his own) inclination * It is not but a revelation revealed" [TMQ: 53:3-4]
In other words when it concerns legislation, the Messenger of Allah (saw) only speaks by Revelation and only acts according to Revelation and does not make Ijtihad. Because the Mujtahid succeeds and errs, and this is not proper on the part of the Messenger (saw) who only speaks and acts according to Revelation regarding Legislation.
Regarding what came in The Introduction to the Draft Constitution Part Two, this is related to the State administration in spending in the interest of the Muslims or appointing a wali (governor) or qadi (judge)... so the expenditure of the state property such as jizya, kharaj, fai' and the money of the apostates... according to the interest of the Muslims, is entrusted to the Ijtihad of the State leader in order to achieve the interests of the Muslims. Likewise the appointing of a wali (governor) is entrusted with the Ijtihad of the State leader in order to achieve the interest of the Muslims.
The Messenger (saw) was a Prophet, Messenger and ruler in Madinah, and he (saw) did not make Ijtihad regarding legislation, whereas he informed what was revealed. However concerning expenditure, he (saw) acted as a ruler, using his opinion and Ijtihad, in the interest of the Muslims. Like at Hunain where he (saw) gave some people from the war booty and did not others, noting that this is the only matter where Shariah has entrusted the expenditures to the head of the state. With regards to other matters, it does not apply, such as the spending of zakat.
And running the state administration, such as if the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed so and so as governor or judge... We do not say that so and so is a governor that his governorship occurred way of Revelation, rather this is from the administrative affairs of the state under the section of the appointment of governors and the likes with his (saw) Ijtihad to achieve the interest of the Muslims.
As of this, there is no contradiction between what is written in The Islamic Personality Volume One and The Introduction to the Draft Constitution Part Two.
Question Three:
In a discussion with someone, who prays (salah) at the required times, but does not pray Salaatul Jumaah (Friday prayer) with people, rather prays it as duhr (noon prayer). So when I refused this, he said that the presence of the Khaleefah is a condition for the validity of the Salaatul Jumaah (Friday prayer). Do any of the fiqh scholars hold this opinion? And what is the Hizb's opinion on this matter? JazakAllahu Khair (May Allah reward you)
Answer:
Salaatul Jumaah (Friday prayer) is a duty (fard) whether there is or is not a Khaleefah, and the evidences for this are well-known, and among them are:
Allah the Almighty says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلَاةِ مِنْ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
"O you who have believed, when [the adhan] is called for the prayer on the day of Jumu'ah [Friday], then proceed to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade. That is better for you, if you only knew." [TMQ: 62:9]
And in his book al-Mastadrak (المستدركه), Al Hakim deducted from Abu Musa that the Prophet (saw) said: ‘الجمعة حق واجب على كل مسلم في جماعة إلا أربعة: عبد مملوك، أو امرأة، أو صبي، أو مريض' "Salaatul Jumaah in congregation is a duty (wajib) upon every Muslim except for four: a slave, a woman, the immature boy and the sick."
Al-Hakim said: "This hadith (narration) is Sahih according to the requirements of the two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim), and we shall not omit it." Likewise, Al Nisa'i deducted from Ibn Umar, from Hafsa, the Prophet's wife (saw) narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:
"رَوَاحُ الْجُمُعَةِ وَاجِبٌ عَلَى كُلِّ مُحْتَلِمٍ"
"Attending Jumaah is a duty (wajib) on every pubescent"
And these evidences are clear that it is not restricted to the Imam (the Khaleefah).
This is also the opinion of the followers of the three Madhahib (schools of thoughts) (Malik, Shafaii and Ibn Hanbal) but only the Ahnaf (followers of Abu Hanifa) stated Jumaah requirements are: The permission of the Sultan (the leader) himself, or his representative or his formal deputy representative, as this is how it was at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and in the era of the rightly guided Khulafaa. This is how it was, if there was an imam or his deputy in the town during the time for Jumaah. If none of them were present, because of death or sedition or whatever resembles this, and the time for Jumaah entered, then people should gather around a man amongst them, to lead them in their Salaatul Jumaah.
The permission of the Sultan (leader) is an outweighed opinion with us, based on the aforementioned evidences.
In summary, Salaatul Jumaah is a duty (fard) whether a Khaleefah is present or not.
