Video: An Introduction to Hizb ut Tahrir By: Unknown No comments

This presentation aims by Ustadh Forid Abu Yaqoob to introduce the work of Hizb ut Tahrir, it's founder, and why the political party was formed. It is also to demonstrate how the practical work of Hizb ut Tahrir compares to the methodology that was laid down by our beloved Prophet (saw) to establish an Islamic authority i.e., the Khilafah.

Video: Khilafah - The Vital Issue By: Unknown No comments

Ustadh Forid Abu Yaqoob presents a discussion on proving the duty to re-establish the Khilafah as obligatory as well as to explain how it is a vital issue which means that the Muslim Ummah must make it a central aspect of their lives.

After Paris, the West asks the Wrong Questions By: Unknown No comments

After Paris, the West ask, ‘why do they hate us?’ and ‘what is wrong with their religion’? They are asking the wrong questions. The question after Paris should be, ‘How has the Muslim Ummah displayed such remarkable restraint at the hands of brutal western colonialism?’

The year was 1857, across India the mutiny had erupted against British colonial rule. The British fought back with brutal force. The then figurehead of the rebellion, the last Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar, was captured. To underscore their brutality, when requesting food, the British brought to him the heads of his two sons they had just slain. With immense composure he replied, “Thanks to Allah, the descendants of Timur always come in front of their fathers in this brave way”. Zafar died in captivity.

In Algeria, the rebellion against colonial independence from France from 1954 was met with sheer European brutality. The French adopted a policy of ratissages,combing through towns and cities and slaughtering everyone as retribution for the rebellion. Hundreds of thousands were tortured and in total 1.5 million Algerian Muslims perished at the hands of a colonial master who could not fathom why they would want to be free from their rule.

During the Cold War, the Americans employed a policy of buttressing dictators at the expense of the will of Muslim masses. In Egypt, the US employed Sadat and Mubarak to keep Egypt within its world order and prevent Soviet penetration. President Carter even turned it into a fundamental cornerstone of US foreign policy; the Carter Doctrine (1980) specified only the US would be allowed to be the guarantor of Middle Eastern oil supplies and security, including the security of ‘Israel’, and the US was ready to use military force to guarantee this. Under these Egyptian dictators, torture was systemic and industrial.

During the war in the former Yugoslavia, the US pursued a policy that enabled genocide. The now infamous 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 7000 Muslim men and children could only have been perpetrated with the tacit approval of UN peacekeepers who openly handed over the Muslims sheltering in their ‘safe-zones’. Recent evidence suggests whilst the massacre was taking place by the Serbs, the Americans were fully aware of it through satellite imagery and intelligence reports.

The War on Terror’s excesses are well documented. In Afghanistan, the US deemed Taliban fighters to be ‘unlawful combatants’ enabling the degrading and inhuman treatment of detainees at torture dungeons such as Bagram Airbase. Guantanamo Bay is seen as a byword for US mistreatment, but in fact CIA ‘black-sites’ were established across the world. Muslim citizens were ‘rendered’ from the streets of Europe and elsewhere with the full approval of governments and tortured by security officials in Syria, Morocco and Eastern Europe amongst other places. Torture was being outsourced.

In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American’s loss of control led them to employ the services of Blackwater (rebranded to Academi). This private military company engaged in indiscriminate killing and targeting, including civilians. In one incident trigger-happy operatives mowed down 17 Iraqi civilians. The company’s chief employee in Pakistan, Raymond Davis, was arrested after he killed three civilians in a Lahore market. Then a network of CIA / Blackwater operatives was revealed across Pakistan. It became clear, much of the sectarian bombings and violence in the country were being instigated by the US.

The Syrian civil war, that started with hope in 2011 soon deteriorated into a bloodbath. The counter Assad forces initially made immense progress, with groundswell support. The US, conscious of the dangers of an independent Syria sought to play a balancing role between the two sides. Allowing their agents in the Gulf States to feed one side and Russia and Iran to feed the other. It created a vacuum in Iraq allowing the formation of Daesh. By this it kept the civil war in balance and enabled international public opinion to develop against the anti-Assad forces. The ensuing catastrophe and annihilation has been down to US action – not – as they have allowed it to be claimed, a lack of indecision or inaction. The US watched on as their policy unfolded, with over 300,000 killed and millions displaced.

The last two hundred years have been ones where this Ummah has been the subject of murder and barbarism on an industrial scale. The Muslim Ummah’s blood has become cheap at the hands of Western states who manipulate our lands like a chess player moves his pawns. And so after Paris, what we should be asking is not why a minority of Muslims have adopted the same brutal methods of the West but how amazing it is that an Ummah of 1.8bn can show such restraint?

This is because the vast majority of Muslims, recognising the sheer injustice meted out on this Ummah are restricted by Islam and governed by the Shari’ah rules that prohibits the targeting of non-combatants and civilians and established the highest norms of behavior and conduct when confronting injustice, following the method of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

“Allah does not love those who overstep the limits.”

(Al-Baqarah, 2:190)

Abdullah Jaleel

Source

Why Does Hizb ut Tahrir Seek Nussrah from Muslim Armies? By: Unknown No comments

On a primary level, question of talab al-Nussrah (seizing power vis-à-vis those who possess the material capacities to do so) is not to be deliberated on the basis of whether or not we perceive it to be an “optimal” strategy or not. It is a question of whether or not this hukm-Shari’ is binding. More than often, “Islamists” construct their methodology, which they go on to justify with Islamic references, on the optimal and expedient political strategy at hand.

The usulliyun have explained that a particular action of the Prophet (f’il) is a hukm-shari’ when it is related to a legal-verse from the Qur’an (ayaat al-Ahkaam). It is for this reason scholars, in explaining the relationship between the Qur’an and Sunnah, defined the Sunnah as those actions which make the Qur’anic injunctions manifest (tibyaan al-Qur’an). The Prophet’s, peace be upon him, seeking of Nussrah is an explicit example of such. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his magnum opus Fathi ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari narrates, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbass that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib stated:لَمَّا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ نَبِيّه أَنْ يَعْرِض نَفْسَه عَلَى قَبَائِل الْعَرَب، خَرَجَ وَأَنَا مِنْهُ وَأَبُو بَكْر إِلَى مِنًى، حَتَّى دَفَعَنَا إِلَى مَجْلِس مِنْ مَجَالِس الْعَرَب “When Allah subhanahu wa ‘talaa ordered the Prophet to approach the Arab tribes, I and Abu Bakr accompanied the Prophet salallahu ‘alaayhee wa-Salam to Mina until the court of the Arab tribes.”

The Prophet ﷺ persisted in this particular action despite the suppression and harm (darar) it wrought. In fact, the Prophet’s persistence on an action which wrought harm is indicative of its obligatory nature (wujub) because one of the five legal maxims of fiqh (al-Qawa’id al-Fiqhiyyah) state that: ad-Darar yuzal (harm is to be removed) if and only if the darar (harm) or difficulty (mashaqa) is not intrinsic to the hukm-shari’ itself (e.g. being wounded during Qital, become thirsty while fasting and so forth). In other words, had the act of seeking nussrah not been an obligation, the Prophet ﷺ would not have persisted in it after it brought about harm.

On this note, the claim that this particular action of the Prophet (talab al-Nussrah) is not legally binding requires from of ‘takhsis’ (specification) i.e. complementary (qar’in) Islamic evidences which renders this action specific to the Prophet ﷺ and/or specific to his epoch. Other criticisms of the Party’s stance on seeking nussrah argue that it is an act which is, not only specific to the Prophet ﷺ, but also specific to the socio-political, cultural and economic epoch of his time. This argument, however, fails to distinguish between the timeless and immutable fact that all societies are based on power-relations on one hand and the ways in which those power-relations were mediated at the time of the Prophet ﷺ on another. To put it differently, the hukm shari’addresses a fixated reality that is part of all societies, regardless of their time and place, whereas the implementation of the hukm shari’ is context-sensitive.

On a secondary level however, it is important to explain that the Shari’, by virtue of it being the expressed will of the Creator, addresses the reality of man and of society. More specifically, it provides permanent legal-rulings for those permanent features of man and of society. Therefore, the debate over what is “practical” is a debate which cannot be delinked from a debate over what we ought-to do.

The issue of talab al-Nussrah is an example of how the Shari’ addresses a permanent dimension of society: the nature of power. The traditional perspective has been that political power is maintained by a single monolithic pillar. In turn, to take power requires that the pillar-of-power be pushed over – demolished – and a new pillar-of-power erected. However, this perspective fails to recognize the pluralistic nature of power in society i.e. the fact that power is in fact dispersed vis-à-vis pillars of support and not wholly concentrated on a single pillar-of-power. Gene Sharp, a leading scholar on political change defines pillars-of-support as: “institutions and sections of the society that supply the existing regime with sources of power required for maintenance and expansion of its power capacity.” In doing so, this brings to fore a far more dynamic and reality-based definition of political power, which is: the totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority, rewards, and sanctions – available to achieve the objectives of the power-holder.” From a strategic perspective, this means that those who seek to uproot the ‘State’ must work towards pulling these pillars of support away from the ‘center’ of power and not towards it (e.g. by engaging in insurrectionary action).

It is important, at this point, to understand that there are different functions of power which each pillar exercises distinctively. For example, religious establishments and media outlets have the power to influence whereas the police-force and military have the power to exercise coercive power. In seizing power, we must identify the pillar-of-support which has the both the function and capacity to bring about radical institutional transformation. In the contemporary Arab-Muslim world, this function and capacity has largely been held by the military apparatus.This also means that, while power is dispersed it remains concentrated in one entity more than another. Furthermore, it is not only about the material capacity to institute radical change but also a willingness to do so. It is not sufficient to instigate a coup d’état which maintains or resurrects the very same oppressive system-of-rule which the Party sought to uproot. What is sought is radical change. There are often referred to as “revolutionary coups”[1] such as the anti-Monarchial coups in Egypt (1952), Tunisia (1957), Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962), and so forth. By its very nature, seeking nussrah is predicated on the ability of the co-opted power-elites to undergo a comprehensive ideological transformation which would, in turn, allow them to both (1) use their power to dissolve the prevailing State and subsequently (2) relinquish that power. This cannot occur if the coup d’état is instigated on the basis of material interests. In co-opting elements from the military, a movement is thus able to transform what is often a “conservative guardian of the existing order”[2] to an agent for the dissolution of that order – the strategic implications of which cannot be overstated.

From its inception, Hizb ut Tahrir has explicated these permanent features of society and have identified the difference between “authority” (dependent power) and raw-power (independent power). It has, from the onset, recognized the fact that talab al-Nussrah is the obligatory and optimal means of seizing power. It does not seek to “build power” by presuming that as an Ummah we lack the means-of-power but rather it recognizes a far more fundamentally strategic reality: we lackaccess to those means-of-power i.e. the militaries and natural resources in the Muslim world. Accordingly, we call upon, and will continue to call upon the sincere people of power in the Muslim world to adopt the call of Hizb ut Tahrir and establish a Caliphate upon the Prophetic methodology.

Ali Harfouch

[1] Hungtington SP, Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1968. 192-264

[2] Ibid.

Source

Britain’s Anti-Terror Laws and the Politics of Fear By: Unknown No comments

In July of this year, British Prime Minister David Cameron laid out his five-year strategy to deal with terrorism and extremism. His plan went beyond tackling violence, spelling out his desire to deal with non-violent ‘extremism’ and to tackle head on ‘ideology’. This came after a series of policy initiatives his government has revealed over the past year, including his desire to introduce ‘deradicalisation programmes’, that would deal with what he described as a growing number of radical youth in the Muslim community, the power to regulate madrassahs and their curriculum and close down Masajids that did not adhere to strict codes of conduct. Since 9/11 the British government, like many western governments, have rolled out a series of measures to clamp down on the Muslim community and deal with what some have described as a fifth column within western society.

A number of sincere Muslim voices within the community have, understandably, shown alarm. Calling for Muslim action and the formation of lobby groups that pressure the government and the mobilisation of the community to address the new terror laws.  This is not new. Ever since the previous Labour government introduced draconian powers of detention without charge and control orders (house arrest), Muslim activists have focused on the presence of these laws and made them the subject of attention. It is not uncommon to find speakers across the country decrying these laws, showing how counterproductive they are. One such group courted controversy recently when they suggested the newspaper bogeyman, British born ‘Jihadi John’, had turned to violence after being subjected to anti-terror policing.

But are we missing something?

Ever since the west waged its War on Terror, a concerted effort has been made to challenge Islam and Islamic practice within the Muslim communities in Europe, North America and Australia. This campaign, fought on many fronts and including a raft of anti-terror laws have aimed to do two things. Firstly, to radicalise western populations against Islam and secondly to sow fear amongst Muslim communities, to keep them submissive and passive.

Radicalising western populations

When the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it marked a transition in international relations. The USA stood as the lone superpower without challenge. The USA sought to establish a world based upon what the US political theorist Ikenberry calls a ‘Liberal World Order’, that is a web of institutions, alliances and client states that reinforced this American world order. The remarkable thing about this period was how the US sought to establish total control. It was what some commentators called its ‘unipolar moment’. The US not only established military and economic dominance and developed the rules governing this order, it worked hard to prevent the rise of any alternatives. Publicly they hailed ‘the end of ideology’ but privately they worked to undermine any potential challenge. Initially these alternatives came in the form of a possible resurgent Russia and an economically strengthened China and a number of plans were developed to contain them and restrain their influence including the expansion of NATO to accommodate former Soviet satellite states like Poland.

However, both Russia and China although posing a challenge to the US order, are essentially nationalistic great powers, content with strengthening their influence. The US fears these states not as ideological competitors but great powers seeking to unseat its primary status. The only alternative America saw on the horizon was that of the Islamic Ummah and the rise of the Islamic Khilafah. The West knows only too well the potential of this Ummah if it were to bind its political affairs according to Islam and so they worked tirelessly to prevent its establishment. This is because only Islam, when correctly applied, can provide a coherent ideological challenge to the west.

The events of 9/11 gave America the pretext to engage militarily with the Muslim world, with the hope to control Islamic societies. The approach was to label all calls for liberation as calls for terrorism. They erected straw men. Sought to conflate Islam with terrorism. When that failed and the Arab revolutions began, which were revolutions ignited by the people; they observed with horror their Islamic nature. The Syrian revolution particularly perturbed them because of the strength of its Islamic character. So they created the conditions for Daesh to fill a vacuum that they created and declare what they claim to be a Khilafah. Through this they attempted to conflate the most powerful Islamic idea of its time, ‘Khilafah’, with barbarism, nihilism and violence.

How do the terror laws fit in? The interesting thing about these laws is that many of them confirm powers the government already has. Some of these policy announcements never see the light of day beyond a headline. The steady drip of proclamations serves only one purpose. To prepare western populations. To prepare them for what is now the inevitable rise of Islam and the Khilafah as an ideological challenge and an alternative world order. The West observes this rise with alarm. This is why it contained a few thousand fighters in Iraq and exaggerated their claims of an Islamic state, in order to bring to the fore the word Khilafah and associate it with all that is evil. Today non-Muslims fear ‘caliphate’ as a result of this repulsive campaign. Its establishment, in the public imagination, would create the conditions for blood-shed and slavery.

Building a fearful Muslim community

This narrative has an impact. It instills fear. Muslim communities in the West fear the future of their children and institutions. This generation of fear is intentional. It colours Muslim activism, reducing the da’wah to a call to be fearful. The more Muslim communities talk of these terror laws devoid of its correct political context the more the government plan is realised. We see today, with regret, talented members of our community distracted from the vital issue of this Ummah, the call for a return to Islamic political unity by establishing the Khilafah upon the method of the Prophethood and instead busying themselves lobbying government or addressing these laws, giving them credibility.

We are an Ummah with a destiny. It is an Ummah of Musab ibn Umayr (ra) who was not detracted from his da’wah by the hostility of the leaders of Madinah. It is an Ummah of the emigrants to Abyssinia, whose hearts were wedded to the belief that the Messenger ﷺ would build a state upon Islam not the narrow polity of the African kingdom. We are an Ummah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, that worked tirelessly to create a state in Madinah that would be a springboard for the Islamicda’wah. Only when the Muslim communities in the West recalibrate their call to focus on the most important issue, the issue of Khilafah can we see Islam’s rightful position in world affairs. The return of Khilafah keeps American policy-makers awake at night, does its demands do the same for Muslims in the West?

وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ أَنتُمْ قَلِيلٌ مُّسْتَضْعَفُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ تَخَافُونَ أَن يَتَخَطَّفَكُمُ النَّاسُ فَآوَاكُمْ وَأَيَّدَكُم بِنَصْرِهِ وَرَزَقَكُم مِّنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And remember how He gave you shelter when you were few in number and considered weak in the land, ever fearing that the people would snatch you away; but He gave you refuge and supported you with His victory and provided you with goodness, so that you might give thanks.”

(Al-Anfal: 26)

Abdullah Jaleel

Source

Q&A: Six Categories of Riba Based Properties By: Unknown No comments

Questions:

Question of Ayn Alhak:

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuhu our respected Sheikh. May Allah assist you with the victory from Him and grant you, the Hizb and the Ummah a clear victory…

I have a question about selling dates in the case where they are from the seven categories mentioned in the Hadeeth of ‘Mubaadalah’ (Exchange). Is it permissible to sell dates for Darahim for a future time of payment? I mean if I was to buy one kilogram of dates and then pay its price afterwards? Please benefit us in acquiring knowledge and may Allah reward you with goodness. This question comes because this is the season of dates. May Allah reward you all with goodness.

Question of Zakaria Karimeh:

May Allah bless you but what about delayed payment by instalments? Is it permissible if the buying of the gold was done with paper currency?

Question of Ayman Alfjjary:

What is the difference between buying gold as a debt (and why is it Haraam) and between the loan which is permissible according to what has been mentioned in the paragraph in the subject of Riba (usury) and Sarf (exchange) in the Economic System of Islam?

Question of Hisham Is’efan:

Assalaamu Alaikum our Sheikh and our Ameer… warm greetings to you… the following Hadeeth was mentioned in the book Economic System of Islam in the chapter of Riba and Sarf (exchange) on page 259: «الذهب بالذهب والفضة بالفضة والبر بالبر والشعير بالشعير والتمر بالتمر والملح بالملح مثلا بمثل…» “The gold for gold, the silver for silver, the wheat for wheat, the barley for barley, the dates for dates and the salt for salt…” until the end of the Hadeeth. My question is and may Allah bless you… Are these four foodstuffs explicitly mentioned in the Hadeeth treated in the same manner as the gold and silver in selling and buying? So for instance is it permissible for me to take a as a debt a bag of flour whilst it is recorded upon its cost/value. Or is there a difference in dealing between two currencies and between these foodstuffs mentioned in the Hadeeth? And is the manufactured different from the ore? I apologise for the length of the question and Baarakallahu Bikum and As-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah.

---

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu,

Your four questions are similar and for that reason we will answer them by way of a single answer whilst paying attention to the Riba based types of property being six: ‘Gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates and salt’ and not seven as mentioned in the first question.

The answer to these questions is as follows:

1) The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: «الذهب بالذهب، والفضة بالفضة، والبُر بالبُر، والشعير بالشعير، والتمر بالتمر، والملح بالملح مثلاً بمثل سواءً بسواء يداً بيد. فإذا اختلفت هذه الأصناف فبيعوا كيف شئتم إذا كان يداً بيد» “The gold for gold, the silver for silver, the wheat for wheat, the barley for barley, the dates for dates and the salt for salt; like for like, measure for measure and hand to hand (i.e. immediately) and if they differed sell as you wish, if it was hand to hand”. Narrated by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim by way of ‘Ubaadah Bin As-Saamit may Allah be pleased with him.

The text is clear in the case where there is a difference in the Riba based types or categories as the trade can occur as you wish which means that it is not a condition for it to be like for like however taking possession is a condition. The Lafzh (worded expression) ‘Al-Asnaaf’ (categories) is mentioned in an ‘Aamm (general) form in respect to all of these Riba based types, meaning the six. Nothing is exempted from this unless there is a text and in the case where there is no text then the Hukm is the permissibility of exchanging the wheat for barley, or the wheat for gold, or the barley for silver, or the dates for salt, or the dates for gold, or the salt for silver etc… It is permissible to exchange these irrespective of how much the value of the exchange or the prices have differed as long as it is hand to hand i.e. it is not as a loan. What applies to the gold and the silver also applies to the paper currency due to sharing the ‘Illah (reasoning) of ‘Naqdiyah’ (acting as a currency) where it is utilised as a price and for wages.

2) There was an exception from ‘the obligation of taking possession at the time of trading the Riba based categories or type’ in the case of the Rahn (collateral) when buying the four types: ‘wheat, barley, salt and dates’ by Naqd (currency). This is due to the Hadeeth of Muslim from ‘Aishah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:«اشْتَرَى مِنْ يَهُودِيٍّ طَعَامًا إِلَى أَجَلٍ، وَرَهَنَهُ دِرْعًا لَهُ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ»  “Purchased food from a Jew to a deferred time of payment and gave him a shield from iron as a security”. This means that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ purchased food by taking a debt (upon it) however this was done with a Rahn (collateral). Their food at that time was from the Riba based types. This is like what was mentioned in the Hadeeth: «الطعام بالطعام مثلاً بمثل وكان طعامنا يومئذٍ الشعير» “The food for food like for like and our food at that time was barley” as collected by Ahmad and Muslim by the path of Mua’mmar Bin Abdullah. Therefore it is permissible for you to buy the Riba based categories by way of a debt if something is left as a collateral with the seller until the time of presenting the cost.

3) Then if the one lender and indebted are secure with one another there is as a result no need for a Rahn (collateral). The evidence for that is His Speech سبحانه وتعالى:

﴿وَإِن كُنتُمْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ وَلَمْ تَجِدُوا كَاتِبًا فَرِهَانٌ مَّقْبُوضَةٌ فَإِنْ أَمِنَ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا فَلْيُؤَدِّ الَّذِي اؤْتُمِنَ أَمَانَتَهُ وَلْيَتَّقِ اللَّـهَ رَبَّهُ﴾

“And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a security deposit [should be] taken. And if one of you entrusts another, then let him who is entrusted discharge his trust [faithfully] and let him fear Allah” [2: 283].

This noble Aayah establishes that the collateral in respect to the debt during travelling is done without collateral if the lender and the indebted trust one another. This is applied to the collateral when purchasing by way of a debt the four Riba based categories: ‘wheat, barley, salt and dates’. It is therefore as Allah سبحانه وتعالى said: ﴿فَإِنْ أَمِنَ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا﴾ “And if one of you entrusts another”

Its Dalaalah (textual implication) is clear here, in this case, in respect to the collateral (deposit) not being required.

4) It is therefore permissible to purchase the four Riba based categories: ‘Wheat, barley, dates and salt’ with currency as a debt with or without a collateral for the payment of the debt in the case where both the seller and the buyer are secure with one another and trust each other… In these two cases, purchasing in these categories through a debt is permissible. This means that the salt which you asked about purchasing by a debt is permissible in the case when the noble Ayah is realised: ﴿فَإِنْ أَمِنَ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا﴾ “And if one of you entrusts another”.

This is what I have outweighed to be the strongest opinion in this issue and Allah knows best and is Most Wise.

5) It is worth knowing that the following was mentioned in the Explanation of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari by Ibn Battaal in the chapter ‘Purchasing food for a delayed payment’: “There is no disagreement amongst the people of knowledge that it is permissible to buy food for a known price for a known (defined) time (of payment)”.

And it was mentioned in the book: ‘Al-Fiqh ‘Alaa Al-Madhaahib Al-Arba’a’ of Al-Juzairi in regards to purchasing the Riba based categories: “As for if one of means of exchange was a currency and the other was a food then it is valid for it to be delayed (in payment i.e. deferred)”.

And it was mentioned in ‘Al-Mughni’ of Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi when he was discussing the prohibition of trading the four types with each other by incurring a debt… He said: “Unlike if the four types are sold by dirhams or other weighted items for delayed payment therefore the need for collateral is needed.”

Conclusion:

1) It is permissible to trade dates, wheat, barley and salt by currency as a debt with a collateral to pay the debt or without a collateral if the seller and purchaser are secure with and trust one another…. in other than these two situations it is not permissible.

2) Buying gold with the currency as a debt is absolutely not permissible whether the currency was gold or paper currency and whether the debt was all deferred as a whole or was by instalments in the case where a part was paid immediately whilst the rest was divided into instalments… In this latter case of instalments by paying a part of the cost up front, then that which is valid to be undertaken in respect to trading gold is that where its cost is paid at once; meaning by the first instalment. As for what is paid of the cost in the rest of the instalments then the trade in it is not valid… If however all of the instalments were delayed where none of it was fulfilled immediately then the trade as a whole is not valid due to the application of the evidences of exchanging the Riba based properties upon it.

3) As for loaning gold, silver, currency and the remainder of the Riba based categories; it is permissible with a condition and that is that nor profit is gained and that is because it differs from the trade and the exchange even if it looks similar. This is because trade and exchange includes the exchange of money with money of its kind or from another kind. As for the loan then it means the giving of money to another to then receive it from him (later) as it was (i.e. without change). The loan is undertaken by way of leniency and kindness and its evidences are different from the evidences of trade and the evidences of trading the Riba based properties do not apply to it so as to make it Haraam like the trade of gold for a delayed payment… Rather its evidences pronounce its permissibility and Muslim related from Abu Raafi’: «أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم استسلف من رجل بَكراً، فقدمت عليه إبل من إبل الصدقة، فأمر أبا رافع أن يقضي الرجل بَكره، فرجع إليه أبو رافع فقال: لم أجد فيها إلاّ خيَاراً رباعياً، فقال: أعطه إياه إن خيار النّاس أحسنهم قضاء»“That Allah’s Messenger ﷺ took a young camel (under six years old) from a man as a loan. Then a camel from the camels of Sadaqa were brought to him. So he ordered Abu Rafi’ to return to that person the young camel (as a return of the loan). Abu Rafi’ returned to him and said: I did not find among them but better camels above the age of six. He (the Holy Prophet) said: “Give that to him for the best men are those who are best in paying off the debt”. And Ibn Hibban related from Ibn Mas’oud that the Prophet ﷺ said: «ما من مسلم يُقرض مسلماً قَرضاً مرتين إلا كان كصدقة مرة» “There is no Muslim who gives a Muslim a loan two times except that it would be like the Sadaqah (once)” and the Prophet ﷺ used to take loans.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

21st Muharram 1437 AH

03/11/2015 CE

The link to the answer of the Ameer’s page of Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/Ata.abualrashtah/photos/a.154439224724163.1073741827.154433208058098/509892592512156/?type=3