Thursday, June 15, 2017

New book: The Muslim's Handbook to Understanding Islamic Economics & Financial Transactions

The Muslim's handbook to understanding Islamic Economics & Financial Transactions - Compilation of Q&A answered by Sheikh Ata bin Khaleel abu Rashta

Istinarah Press
Paperback, 149 pages
This book has been compiled as a result of a need to have a handy guide to understand various issues related to Economics & Financial Transactions from the Shari’ perspective. Running over 430 pages, the subjects covered in the book include the Ahkam related to Zakah, Trade & Commerce, Riba, Insurance, Employment, Hiring, Muamalat, Loans & Debts, Land, Agriculture, Public & Private Property , currency, economic crisis and funds in the Khilafah. 

And as time progresses and with the ever increasing call among the Muslims to reunite under a Khilafah where Islamic is implemented In a comprehensive manner, there is an increasing need for books to be written on crucial subjects so as to be to able to build within the Ummah, the right awareness and depth.

Having realized the need we have embarked on this ambitious project to produce books on subjects that are pertinent to the Ummahs culturing, subjects that have not yet been brought out in the form of books.

The ‘Muslim ideologue’s Companion’ series is a unique series that Istinarah Press has worked to compile and bring forth addressing a range of subjects including indepth studies & analysis on regional and international powers, important economic issues such as Oil pricing and the Global Economic Crisis & Legislative opinions on the working of the very soon to be established Khilafah Rashidah.

Most of our content has been compiled from existing articles, books & Question And Answers answered by Shekh Ata bin Khaleel abu Rashta and other authors and writers on the subjects.
Available from Maktaba Islamia

Q&A: Crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar!

Question: Trump said at a press conference with his Romanian counterpart in the White House on 9/6/2017: (…key players in the region agreed to stop supporting terrorism, whether it be financial, military or even moral support. The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. And in the wake of that conference, nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior. So we had a decision to make: Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided, along with Secretary of state Rex Tillerson, our great generals and military people, the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding…) (Al-Youm As-Sabi’,9/6/2017) Does this mean that the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar was driven by Trump? If this is true, why is Trump taking this step, knowing that America’s largest base in the region is in Qatar? The media also attributed the cause of the political dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Qatar’s position on Iran, the Brotherhood, or Hamas. How do we understand Trump’s statement in light of what is stirred in the media? And where is this crisis heading? Will it lead to the withdrawal or expulsion of Qatar from the Gulf group? And thank you.

Answer:
First: yes, the driver of the crisis that has taken place is America. In other words, it is the US President Trump, but before I elaborate on that, I start with the last part of the question. Some thought that the reason for the Qatari Gulf crisis, as reported by the media or as promoted, was Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood or its strategic alliance with Iran while others went on to say that the real cause of the crisis was due to an old dispute between the family of Hamad and the family of Zayed that began in the 1970s when the UAE was founded. This led Saudi Arabia to follow its ally, the UAE, to attack Qatar. There are writers that said that the crisis of boycotting Qatar is linked to “Israel”. As an example is the quote from Jake Novak to CNBC:
“On the surface, it’s perfectly accurate to say the stunning rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is all about Iran as the Saudis have become obsessed with stemming Iran’s growing power and influence in the Middle East. But digging a little deeper, it also looks a lot like the singling out of the Qataris at this specific moment has something to do with another country entirely: Israel.” (Arabi 21, 7/6/2017)
But thinking and analyzing deeper everything that happened exclude these things; they are not new, and Qatar has been practicing them for a long time, and they are not renewed these days. Qatar’s closeness to Iran is known and its relationship with Hamas is also famous. Moreover, the impact of the relations between Qatar and the usurping Jewish state of Palestine and the relations between these and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also not hidden, and even tribal relations do not reach this level of escalation. All these things existed before the crisis and still do after the crisis; therefore, they are not the real reasons.
Second: The real reason, as I mentioned at the beginning, is America or Trump and to realize this, we review the following things:
1- Since the beginning of this century, Qatar has become a major “kitchen” for English politics in the region. Al Jazeera has become a major media platform to disrupt US policy and to attack America’s agents in the region. Another factor is the political money which has become a great political magnet to attract political forces. Qatar has made, using these two tools, a great success especially in the Islamic movements that are described as “moderate” in Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and others, and Doha in Qatar became a haven for leaders of these movements and a center for planning and distortion of the American policy and America’s agents. And as in the habit of the British to pretend that it is with America while it seeks to distort things for it, Qatar has mastered this British game and hosted early, since 1991, Al Udeid American base which is the headquarters of the American Central Command and a strategic air base from which US aircraft launch to spread killing and destruction among Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. This was at a time when Britain was building its political “kitchen” in Qatar until it was completed and appeared at the turn of this century.
Then, the role of Qatar, as a servant of Britain, developed smoothly according to the drawn plan. The US was troubled by this role of Qatar to the point of distress that made George W. Bush, the son, consider bombing Al Jazeera Channel according to news published by DW on 22/11/2005:
(British newspaper “The Daily Mirror” on Tuesday quoted a “top secret” memo to the premiership of the British government from President George W. Bush that in 2004 he thought of bombing the headquarters of “Al Jazeera” satellite channel in Qatar) (DW 22/11/2005). This has been the position in the Gulf until King Salman came to power in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia stood with America, and only then the Obama administration decided to entrust its agents Salman with an important role in the region to be, on the one hand, in contrast to the role of Qatar and dominating it and, on the other hand, in line with the new American plans. Hence, he has strengthened the role of America’s agents and has taken the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar to a point that threatens Qatar’s role entirely. And after the new US President Donald Trump came to office early this year, the US policy has become more severe and blunt in dealing with many international issues, including Qatar.
2- During Trump’s visit to Riyadh on 20-21/5/2017, he gathered 50 rulers around him and Salman was beside him. By hinting at Qatar’s support for terrorism, Qatar realized through British feeds that America has started serious steps to elevate the Saudi role and to blow out the Qatari and English role in the Gulf region. As a response, the Qatari statements were made two days after the return of the Emir of Qatar from Riyadh. The Qatar News Agency quoted the statements of the Emir of Qatar, Tamim Al-Thani, on 23/5/2017: “What Qatar is exposed to from an unfair campaign coincided with the US president’s visit to the region aimed at linking it to terrorism … We condemn the accusation of supporting terrorism … no one has the right to accuse us of terrorism  because they classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. He called on Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain to review their anti-Qatar position…There is a strong and solid relationship with America despite the current negative trends of the US administration with our confidence that the status quo will not continue because of judicial investigations against irregularities and transgressions of the US president, and Al Udeid base  represents immunity to Qatar from the ambitions of neighboring countries, but it is the only opportunity for America to own military influence in the region and Qatar does not know terrorism and extremism, and it would like to contribute to the achievement of a just peace between Hamas, the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and (Israel) due to the continuous communication with the parties. Qatar has succeeded in building strong relations with both the United States and Iran at the same time because Iran represents a regional and Islamic weight that cannot be ignored and it is not wise to escalate things with it “. These statements indicate that Qatar accuses Trump of being behind the campaign against Qatar and accusing it of sponsoring or supporting terrorism. The statements came immediately after the Trump summit with the representatives of the existing regimes in the Islamic world in which Trump was keen to show his success in leading these regimes towards American goals and American Obedience. Trump said that some countries at this summit, referred to Qatar, sponsor terrorism. Thus, Qatar’s statements are tantamount to a response to Trump as it wants to drown him and hopes that he is toppled because of the judicial investigations against him.
3- Saudi Arabia’s collection of 55 kings, presidents and leaders (of ignorance and damage) of the Gulf and Arab and Islamic countries represented the Saudi willingness to follow the American plan to show Saudi‘s leadership in the region. This was an unmistakable signal from Washington which wants to put the oil reserves at its disposal under the pretext of the Iranian threat on the one hand and to extinguish the flame of British influence on the Gulf states by making the Saudi leadership dominant and making the rest of the Gulf states walk behind Saudi Arabia, i.e., behind the American policy. Thus, Saudi Arabia was not going to tolerate those who stand against its leadership in the region, and its eyes were open to Qatar and was waiting for an event to put Qatar under fire. Therefore, it reacted harshly to the Qatari statements against Saudi Arabia and America that were published by Qatar News Agency on 23/5/2017. Despite Qatar‘s apology, and showing that the statement on the site of the Qatari agency has been exposed to piracy, but Saudi Arabia did not accept the Qatari narrative, but it saw the statements as a confirmation of Qatar’s rejection of the Saudi policy and the role  America  given to Salman, and then the crisis began. Saudi Arabia was bold and announced severing relations with Qatar; It showed assertiveness against Qatar due standing against the Saudi leadership of the Gulf, and a reflection of the seriousness of Trump’s adminstration positions. Saudi Arabia’s steps were severe against Qatar and has surpassed the level on 05/03/2014 to withdraw ambassadors from Qatar which showed what looks like a siege on Qatar. To have greater influence and following the American way, came the Saudi shocking steps; Qataris were only given 48 hours to leave its territories.
And in harmony with the American method of shock, parallel to the Saudi moves and coinciding with it, Egypt sent back Qatar commercial aircraft and did not allow it to enter its territory without  prior warning and so did other countries that are allied with Saudi Arabia against Qatar.
It seems that Qatar was shocked by these decisions of its boycott and it did not expect them. Qatar’s Foreign Minister, Mohammed Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Thani, said in an interview with the BBC on 6/6/ 2017 that “the measures taken against his country were shocking, and what took place was ” a collective punishment by three countries in this region that have tried to impose a blockade on Qatar and its people …” Qatar cannot be seen as bold in challenging America or America’s agents, like Saudi Arabia, unless there is a big country that supports it and stands behind it to do so, which is of course Britain, that Qatar follows its policy in secret, but rather openly! The British aim is to disrupt America and to thwart its plans to tighten control of the region, especially the Gulf region, and so it instructed its agents in Qatar to do so. The British did not expect the reaction to be so shocking as if it were expecting the withdrawal of ambassadors like in 2014, and things end without great impact, especially that Qatar uses the existence of a large US base there as an immunity. And so it was stated in the Emir of Qatar‘s statements published by the Qatar News Agency on 23/05/2017, which it deleted later and claimed that its website was hacked: “Al Udeid base represents immunity to Qatar from the ambitions of neighboring countries, but it is the only opportunity for America to own military influence in the region. ” That is, Qatar relies on that to silence America, while it disrupts  and meddles against America and its agents in the region and through its channel Al Jazeera. It gave America the largest base in the region, and therefore it was surprised by these violent actions.
4- Thus, the real reason for the crisis is the new role that Trump has drawn for Salman; to be the ruler of the Gulf region, implementing American policy, and preventing any of the British agents to meddle or disrupt it, and because Qatar is the one that Britain has chosen to carry out the British role of meddling and disrupting the American plans in the region and to implement the British plans, an unprecedented violent escalation against Qatar was taken. America is the driver behind Salman in this crisis and they did not hide it, but they were gradually revealing themselves as being behind what happened and is happening:
Al-Arabiya net reported on 6/6/2017 the statement of a senior US administration official to Reuter’s News Agency:  “A lot of Qatari behavior is quite worrisome not just to our Gulf neighbours but to the US as well”. A senior US administration official told Reuters on Monday that the United States does not want to see a “permanent rift” between the Gulf countries, after several Gulf and Arab countries decided to cut ties with Qatar on Monday over alleged support for extremist groups and Iran, the official added: ”We want to bring them in the right direction.”
– The BBC reported on 6/6/2017: (US President Donald Trump hinted at the impact of his recent visit to the Gulf on the decision to sever ties with Qatar, and Trump said he received information during the visit that Doha was financing “extremist ideological” movements.
“During my recent trip to the Middle East, I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!” he wrote.
“So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!” he continued later.
Trump’s statements on 9/6/2017 reveal and confirm that America is behind the Saudi escalation:
(US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Qatar should immediately stop funding terrorism and hoped that the summit in Riyadh would be the beginning of the end of terrorism. “In a press conference with his Romanian counterpart in the White house he said, that Qatar has historically been a state funding terrorism.”(Sky News Arabia, 9/6/2017)
Donald Trump said:   “…key players in the region agreed to stop supporting terrorism, whether it be financial, military or even moral support. The nation of Qatar unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. And in the wake of that conference, nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior. So we had a decision to make: Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided, along with Secretary of state Rex Tillerson, our great generals and military people, the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding…) (Al-Youm As-Sabi’,9/6/2017)
5- As to the where is this escalation of the Qatari crisis heading, Qatar has fallen under the shock of these strong positions from America’s agents, Saudi Arabia and Egypt whom some British agents such as, the UAE, Bahrain and others, have followed in the British method of distribution of roles as was mentioned in the Answer to a Question we issued on 9/4/2017 where we said: (… Thus it is clear that Britain divides the roles of its agents in a way that may seem contradictory, but in the end achieves the British purposes; it does not put all its agents in one side, especially in countries where multiple cards exist). Qatar, as we have said, did not expect the escalation to be so strong and severe. The Saudi steps were shocking; Qatar’s diplomats were only given 48 hours to leave its territories. In harmony with the American method of shock and parallel to the Saudi steps, Egypt sent back commercial Qatar airplanes  and did not allow them to enter its territory without prior warning, and so did other countries that are allied with Saudi Arabia against Qatar.
6- Does this lead to the withdrawal of Qatar from the Gulf Group? it is possible as the last resort, but it is likely that there is a possibility of solving the crisis. The relevant international powers, namely America and Britain, both are interested in Qatar remaining within the Gulf Group with the different goals that each wants. Asfor America, it wants Qatar, as mentioned above, under the Saudi Abaya (control); that is, to carry out the interests of America without interference or disruption for different reasons. America wants its base to be stable and to carry out its duties without any disruptions. It knows that Britain is behind Qatar, and that through its cunning styles, it can bring many problems to its base if Qatar leaves the Gulf Group. Thus, America wants Qatar to implement its plans and to be part of the Saudi approach while at the same time remaining in the Gulf Group.
Britain also wants to keep Qatar in the Gulf group because, within this group, it can work behind the curtain for the implementation of British plans according to the British approach which has two faces; it shows the friendliness from the front, and stabs in the back. So, what is likely as we mentioned above is that the solution will revolve around stopping a final rupture between Qatar and the Gulf Group unless this happens as the “last resort”, but this is unlikely at least in the foreseeable future for the following reasons:
A- Trump’s speech on 9/6/2017 mentioned above did not leave a room for Qatar to compromise because he addressed it:
“The nation of Qatar unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. And in the wake of that conference, nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior. So we had a decision to make: Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided, along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, our great generals and military people, the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding…” (Al-Youm As-Sabi’,9/6/2017)
And it is known that Qatar does not draw its own policy, but Britain does, and the current British policy does not confront America publicly, especially at this stage which is the stage of exit from the European Union; it is trying to get close to it even on the surface.
B- Trump’s mentality is that of a trader; the financial field aspect impacts it heavily. if Qatar paid what tempts Trump, he might order Salman to accept a compromise! The American researcher Jonathan Kristol a fellow at the World Policy Institute, said: “The money with Donald Trump in the White House is the key to the Saudi, UAE and Bahrain boycot crisis with Qatar”, he explained in his article that only way for Qatar to overcome the Saudi diplomatic and economic pressure is through the American intervention with its Saudi allies by means of money, according to CNN”… (Arabi 21, 6/6/2017).
That is, the most likely view is that there is a solution through Qatar’s money or Qatar’s submission! And we say the most likely is that when Britain believes that its interest at any moment requires the exit of Qatar from the group, it will leave, and if it requires it to stay, it will remain because Qatar does not run its own policy, but Britain does!
7- In conclusion, nothing good is expected from America’s agents in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and those who went along with them on the subject of the boycott; they have handed over the Islamic countries and the people to the enemies of Islam and Muslims in exchange for retaining the seats of power, with bent legs that can break  today or tomorrow. In addition, nothing good is expected from Qatar that runs behind Britain to be given damaging projects against the Muslims; it gives the United States the largest base from which its planes take off killing and destroying the sons of Muslims in Syria and Iraq and destroying their homes. It also promotes peace with a Jewish entity; it made Hamas compromise to resemble Fatah in making concessions. Moreover, it influenced with its poisoned money some of the organizations in Syria to make them enter into negotiations with the criminal regime there. It is deceiving those who have Islamic orientations and tempting them with money and residency to tame them, to make them compromise and to change their directions and ideas. All of this is from the malignant role drawn for it by Britain. Thus it  is naive and near treason to sympathize with this system or with another on the pretext of evil and lesser evil; the issues of the Ummah are not placed in the balance of the evil and the lesser evil, but are measured by the balance of haq (truth) and batil (falsehood). The sons of the Ummah must  reject those treacherous regimes to Allah (swt), His Messenger ﷺ and to the believers, and must work with the loyal workers to topple them and to establish their state; the prophacy (the glad-tiding) of their noble Messenger ﷺ; the righteous Khilafah state (Caliphate) which takes care of their affairs  in safety and security in their home, their transit  and their travel, which brings the Glory to Islam and the Muslims and which humiliates the kaffir colonizers, and then Trump and his henchmen and agents will be hit by a calamity on their bodies and homes.
وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
“And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know”
(Yusuf: 21)

16 Blessed Ramadhan 1438 AH
11/6/2017 CE

Sunday, June 04, 2017

Video: Understaning of Riba (Usury) - An Islamic Perspective

A look at Riba or Usury in the Islamic Context.

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said:

"The Messenger of Allah said: 'Gold for gold, weight for weight, like for like; and silver for silver, weight for weight, like for like. Whoever gives more or takes more has engaged in Riba."'


Q&A: Borrowing from Someone who does not take Halal and Haram as his Criteria

Question:
Assalamu Alaikum our Sheikh
One of my colleagues has a brother who works abroad, but he is not concerned with the Halal and Haram in his work, and my colleague now is in need of money to complete (building) his house, because he can no longer pay the rent; and he is asking can he borrow (money) from his brother. Note that his brother is insisting on lending him (the money)?
From Najmeddine Khcharem

Answer:
Wa Alaikum As-Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuhu
In transactions people exchange three things:
1- A thing that is forbidden specifically for itself like alcohol…these things are forbidden to be given as gifts, nor to be borrowed, or sold, or bought…etc. Transaction is forbidden for the person who gives the alcohol, and is forbidden for the person it is gifted to, or the one who sells it, or buys it, or the one who borrows it…etc. The Messenger ﷺ said:«حُرِّمَتِ الْخَمْرُ بِعَيْنِهَا» “Alcohol is forbidden for itself”(Narrated by Nisa’i).
2- Something that is stolen or taken by force, this is forbidden for the one who stole it or took it by force, and it is forbidden to be given as a gift, or borrowed, or sold, or bought. It is forbidden for the person who acquires it and for the one it is gifted to, or the one who sells it, or buys, or lends it, or have any transaction with it, this is because this money belongs to its owner, once it is found it must be returned to its owner; from the evidences for this: Ahmad from Samura said: the Prophet ﷺ said:
«إِذَا سُرِقَ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ مَتَاعٌ، أَوْ ضَاعَ لَهُ مَتَاعٌ، فَوَجَدَهُ بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهِ، وَيَرْجِعُ الْمُشْتَرِي عَلَى الْبَائِعِ بِالثَّمَنِ»
“If a man have something stolen from him or he lose something, and he finds it with another man, he has more right over it, and the one who bought it must return it to the seller with the price.”
This is a text that says stolen money must be returned to its owner.
This includes taken things by force, the one who took something by force must give it back to its owner, this is due to the saying from Samura from the Prophet ﷺ said:«عَلَى اليَدِ مَا أَخَذَتْ حَتَّى تُؤَدِّيَ» “The hand must give back what it took (by force).”(Extracted by Tirmithi and he said this a Hasan Hadith)
3- Something that is permissible itself like money, as an example gold, silver, or paper money, but it was acquired through an illegal transaction like usury money or gambling money or money of stocks companies and stocks and shares… this is only forbidden for the person who acquired it, and it is not forbidden for the person who receives it legally from the person who acquired the money through usury (riba) or the one who gambled…etc. This is like when you sell something to the person dealing with usury and you take the price from him, or a woman who gets her “nafaqa” (welfare) from a man who deals in usury, or when the man dealing in usury gives a gift to one of his relatives, or he is borrowed from, or any one of the legal transactions. The sin of that money is upon the man who deals in usury and not on the one who received the price or nafaqa or gift, or the borrower, this is because 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.”
(Al-An’am: 164)
4- However it is better not to have transactions with the man who acquired his wealth through forbidden means from usury (riba) or shares…etc, so no one should sell him anything, and to reject his gifts out of piety, so that the seller does not acquire money that is contaminated with usury for his products, and his gift must be turned down because it is from usury. The Muslim must stay away completely from anything that is not pure and clean; the companions of the Prophet ﷺ used to stay away from many permissible “doors” in fear of being led closer to the Haram. It is accurately narrated from the Messenger ﷺ that he said: «لَا يَبْلُغُ العَبْدُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ المُتَّقِينَ حَتَّى يَدَعَ مَا لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ حَذَرًا لِمَا بِهِ البَأْسُ» “A slave is from the pious ones only when he leaves that which is permitted in fear of falling into the forbidden.” (Extracted by Tirmithi and he said it is a Hasan Hadith)
In conclusion it is permissible for you to borrow money from your brother even if he deals in stocks and shares or usury (Riba), or in stocks companies, for the sin is on his neck, you will not be sinful for borrowing the money from him. However it is better out of piety and fearing Allah, is what we mentioned above, that you do not have deals with those who conduct forbidden transactions. If it is possible for you to borrow (the money) from someone who refers to the Halal and Haram in his transactions, then that is better, but if you borrow from your brother who is not referring to Halal and Haram in his transactions then you are not sinful.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
8 Rajab 1438 AH
5/4/2017CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s page on Google Plus:

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s page on Twitter:

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Video: Business Contracts in Islam

A detailed look at the formation and responsibilities of general Business Contracts in Islam. Information every Muslim should know about contracts and agreements.


Q&A: Joining a Trade Union in order to Practice a Profession

Question:                                         
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh, Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh our brothers, Assalamu Alaikum our Ameer, may Allah grant you and those with you, blessings and success …. After greetings
I have a question if you could please reply to it quickly for necessity.
I specialize in medical testing, and to be able to practice the profession it entails the commitment to certain things and rules, some of which are acceptable and some are rejected, while my inner conviction had developed the prohibition of participation in them “I mean some of the rules and things I have to do in order to be a member of the Guild of Medical Laboratory Palestine”. My question is about social solidarity system found in the Guild. As in my union, whenever a member dies it collects an amount of at least ten dinars in order to pay for the people of this deceased member. The union compels persons who linger to pay the amount, otherwise it will not renew their membership which is to be annually renewed. knowing that they told the members that they obtained a fatwa in this regard permitting this process and that there is no prohibition in it. Please reply quickly with evidences. Thank you.
From Abdullah M Alheeh

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
An answer to question was issued by the Hizb had in the early seventies stating that it is Haram (not permissible) to take part in unions.
However, if the State laws do not permit professionals to work in their careers unless to be affiliated to their unions, union affiliation in this case would be tantamount to taking a license to work, such as a dealer taking a license to open his shop … etc., and taking license is allowed if the State laws obligate so.
Hence, affiliation to the union is permissible in this case, ie, in order to allow a person to work in his career, but his affiliation should be limited only to taking the registration paper and the membership, without participating in its meetings or elections …
However, interaction in the union’s milieus through direct influential contact, and building effective relationships with their boards and members, even though the Shab is not participated in the unions … all that falls under the usual communications rather tasks that the Shabab must do them diligently.
Based on the above … and since donating this amount is permissible by choice in origin, but the problem is in being compulsory according to the law of the Union.
So, if your continuance in your work imposes Union affiliation and that entails payment of solidarity amount, otherwise your membership in the union will not be renewed and then you cannot work in your profession …
If the case is so, it is permissible for you to pay the amount, because it is part of the license requirements.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
24th Jumada I 1438 AH
21/02/2017 CE

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

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Google Plus page:

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Twitter page:

Q&A: Seeking Assistance from the Disbelievers

Question:
Is it allowed for the Khilafah State, the coming soon by the permission of Allah (swt), to seek friends from Kafir states and to ally itself with some Kafir States, even if they are practically belligerent states, such as Germany, for the sake of convergence of interests so that the Khilafah can weaken and conquer some countries. Or is this only allowed with states which are legally considered to be belligerent states like Venezuela. Is it allowed to measure the permissibility of the alliance with the actually belligerent states on what the Prophet did of concluding peace treaty with the Quraysh who were practically belligerent in the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah?
And Allah bless you.
From Ubada Ash-Shami

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Your question about the alliance with Kafir states in the sense of seeking their assistance … It is not allowed according to the Islamic rule:
A – This is explained in the book, Shakhsiyya, Islamic Personality Volume II, section “Seeking assistance from the disbelievers”. It mentioned:
“The evidence that it is not allowed to seek assistance from the disbelievers in their capacity as an independent State. This is due to what was Ahmad and An-Nasai narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: «لا تستضيئوا بنار المشركين»“Do not seek light by the fire of the polytheists.”
The fire of a people is a metaphoric expression for their entity in war as an independent tribe or State. Al-Baihaqi said: The authentic is what Al-Hafiz Abu Abdullah informed us via a chain leading to Abu Hameed al-Sa’idi who said:
«خرج رسول الله حتى إذا خلَّف ثنيَّة الوداع إذا كتيبة قال: من هؤلاء؟ قالوا بني قينقاع وهو رهط عبد الله بن سلام قال: وأسلموا؟ قالوا: لا، بل هم على دينهم، قال: قولوا لهم فليرجعوا، فإنّا لا نستعين بالمشركين»
“The Messenger of Allah  went out until he passed Thaniyya al-Wada’ when there was a squadron. He said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.’ He said: ‘Have they embraced Islam?’ They said: ‘Rather they are on their deen.’ He said: ‘Tell them to return for we do not seek assistance from the polytheists.”
The Messenger ﷺ returned the company of Abdullah bin Salam of Banu Qaynuqa since they came as a nation united in a Kafir squadron, and they came under their flag in their capacity as being from Banu Qaynuqa between whom and the Messenger ﷺ were treaties. Due to this he refused them. This rejection was due to their coming under their flag and with their State, by the evidence of his ﷺ accepting the assistance of the Jews in Khyber when they came as individuals. This hadith of Abu Hameed al-Sa’idi includes the Shari’ah reason (illah), so if it exists the rule exists, and if it is absent the rule is absent. The reason in the hadith is clear in the hadith’s text where it says: «إذا كتيبة قال: من هؤلاء قالوا: بني قينقاع وهو رهط عبد الله بن سلام» “when there was a squadron. He said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.’”
The meaning of their being a squadron is that they are an independent army with an independent flag, since for every squadron there is a flag. So, they were a Kafir squadron with an independent flag and from the Jewish of Banu Qaynuqa who were from the ranks of a State between whom and the Messenger ﷺ were treaties. This was the reason for rejecting them, not merely because they were disbelievers with the evidence that he commanded them to return based upon this and their rejection of Islam not due to their rejection of Islam alone. This is strengthened by the hadith of Anas: «لا تستضيئوا بنار المشركين» “Do not seek light by the fire of polytheists.”
As it is directed on the entity. And is strengthened by the Messenger’s accepting assistance from Quzman in the same place of the event of Uhud, although he was a polytheist. The meaning of this is rejecting the assistance of disbelievers in their capacity as an entity and accepting their assistance in their capacity as individuals. Therefore, seeking assistance of disbelievers as a Kafir nation or Kafir tribe or Kafir State, and under their own flag, and as part of their State is absolutely not allowed in any case. As for Khuza’ah going out together with the Prophet ﷺ against the Quraysh the year of conquest, and it was an independent tribe, this does not indicate the permissibility of seeking assistance of a nation with an independent entity because Khuza’ah was present in the year of Hudaybiyah when the peace treaty between the Quraysh and the Muslims was written. When it came in the text of the treaty: «وإنه من أحب أن يدخل في عقد محمد وعهده دخل فيه، ومن أحب أن يدخل في عقد قريش وعهدهم دخل فيه»“Whoever would like to enter into the contract of Mohammed and his pledge can enter into it, and whoever would like to enter into the contract of the Quraysh and their pledge can enter into it” Narrated by Ahmad. Based upon this text Khuza’ah leaped and said: We are in the contract of Muhammad and his pledge, and Banu Bakr leaped and said: We are in the contract Quraysh and their pledge. So, Khuza’ah came together with the Muslims in this treaty which was between the Quraysh and the Muslims, and the Messenger ﷺ entered them under his protection as a group in his state according to the contract. Therefore, it fought as a tribe under the Muslims’ flag and as a part of the Islamic State, not like an independent state, so they were like individuals, not like an entity. As for what some imagine of Khuza’ah having an alliance or a treaty with the Messenger ﷺ, this is not true. For the treaty was between the Messenger ﷺ and the Quraysh and not between the Messenger ﷺ and Khuza’ah …”
Therefore, it is not allowed to ally with any Kafir state or to seek their assistance, but it is permitted for the disbelievers of the people of Dhimah who are citizens in the Islamic state to be in its army.
B – This is also explained in Article No. 190 of the Draft Constitution, which states as follows:
Article 190. All military treaties and pacts, of whatever type, are absolutely forbidden. This includes political treaties and agreements covering the leasing of military bases and airfields. It is permitted to conclude good neighboring, economic, commercial, financial, and cultural and armistice treaties.” End.
It was explained that:
“The definition of: “treaties” is that they are agreements that States conclude between themselves with the goal of organizing a specific relationship and defining the rules and conditions which that relationship submits to. The Islamic jurists used the term: “Al-Muwada’at”… however it is a precondition for the validity of the contracting of the treaty that the subject that the contract was upon was something that the Shari’ah had permitted. There are various types of treaties…
As for military treaties, they are forbidden due to the words of the Prophet ﷺ: «لا تَسْتَضِيئُوا بِنَارِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ» “Do not seek light by the fire of polytheists” (reported by Ahmad and Al-Nasa’i), and the fire of a people is a metaphor for their structure in war. It is also forbidden due to his words: «فَلَنْ أَسْتَعِينَ بِمُشْرِكٍ» “I do not seek help from a polytheist (Mushrik)” (reported by Muslim from Aisha (ra)). And from Aisha(ra) in Abu Dawud and Ibn Maja: «إِنَّا لا نَسْتَعِينُ بِمُشْرِكٍ» “We do not want any help from a polytheist (Mushrik)” and his words: «لاَ نَسْتَعِينُ بِالْكُفَّارِ عَلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ» “We do not seek help from the disbelievers against the polytheists” (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba from Sa’id b. Al- Mundhir).…”
Therefore, it is forbidden to seek the assistance of the disbelievers (Mushrikeen) as a state or to have alliance with them for the above-mentioned evidences.
C – As for the issue of the Hudaybiyah Treaty between the Messenger  and the Quraysh, it is not an alliance, because the alliance means fighting together and so on. But what happened was a truce for a specific period between the Messenger and the belligerent disbelievers (Kuffar) on their land before it was conquered. It is permitted to conclude a truce between us and the practically belligerent disbelievers if their entity is established on their land before it is conquered. However, if their entity is entirely on a land they occupied from the Muslims, it is not permitted to enter into any agreement with them because it means recognition of their occupation of our land, which is forbidden by the Shara’, and this applies to the Jewish entity which is entirely established on a land conquered by the Muslims. This was stated in article 189 under the fourth paragraph, which read:
Article 189: The relationship of the State with other states present in the world is built upon four considerations.
Fourth: States that are actually belligerent states, such as Israel for example, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dealings with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us – irrespective of whether an armistice exists between us or not – and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State.” End.
It explained the following:
“… It is not permitted to have a permanent peace treaty with these countries that were practically belligerent, in other words, a permanent cessation of fighting, or permanent truce, since this prevents Jihad which continues until the Day of Judgment, just as a permanent truce prevents the spread of Islam until Allah (swt) makes it dominant over all other religions. Allah (swt) says: ﴿وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ﴾ “And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah (swt). [Al-Anfal: 39[ And the Messenger  said: «وَالْجِهَادُ مَاضٍ مُنْذُ بَعَثَنِي اللَّهُ إِلَى أَنْ يُقَاتِلَ آخِرُ أُمَّتِي الدَّجَّالَ» “And jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah (swt) sent me as a Prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist).” (reported by Abu Dawud from Anas (ra)).
As for a temporary treaty with these countries, and a temporary cessation of the war, it is looked at as follows:
*- If the State, which is in the actual war against us, has land which is not Islamic land upon which its entity is formed, then it is permitted to have a temporary truce with it, in other words, to stop the war with it for a temporary time, if the pause is in the interest of Islam and the Muslims, and according to the conditions that the Shari’ah confirmed.
The evidence for this is the Treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah, which was between the Islamic State which the Messenger  had established in Madinah and the Qurayshi state which was established upon the land which Islam had not yet conquered, in other words, it was not established upon Islamic land.
*- If the State which was at war with us, was established as an entity in its entirety upon Islamic land, in other words, the entity did not have any land connected to it which had not been conquered by the Muslims, such as Israel – the Jewish state which has stolen Palestine – then it is not permitted to have a treaty with it, since the establishment of this State was invalid according to the Shari’ah, and since a treaty with it would mean to give up Islamic land to it, which is prohibited and a crime against Islam. Rather, the situation of actual war has to remain with it, irrespective if there was a truce which was contracted with it by illegitimate rulers in the Muslim lands, or not.
And so accordingly any treaty with the Jewish state, even over a handspan of the land, is prohibited by the Shari’ah because it is usurping and occupying and its whole entity is established on Muslim land and it is a surrender of Islamic land to it, and an establishment of its control over the Muslims there, which is not permitted according to the Shari’ah. Islam requires that all of the Muslims fight against it, and so their armies must be sent to fight, and all those capable of fighting be gathered as soldiers in the army, and for this to continue until the Jewish state is finished and the Muslim lands are rescued from it. Allah (swt) says:
وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
“And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them].”
(4:141)
And His (swt) words:
فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُم
“So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.”
(2:194)
And:
وَأَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ
“And expel them from wherever they have expelled you.”
(2:191)
Thus, the Hudaybiyah Treaty is not an alliance; it is a temporary truce between the Islamic State and the entity of the Quraysh which existed on their land before it was conquered. It is applied on the permissibility of establishing a truce between the Islamic State and any Kaffir state whose entity exists on its territory, whether all or part of the entity, provided that it is a temporary truce and to be in the interest of Islam and Muslims. However, if the entity of that Kaffir state in its entirety established on Islamic land, then no peace treaty with them is allowed as described above.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
26th Rajab 1438 AH
23/04/2017 CE

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

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Google Plus page:

The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Twitter page: