Use of Names by Arab and Shar’, The linguistic and technical meaning of the word ‘Rooh’

Question:

1. The following came in the Shakhsiyyah, vol III, p. 148, line 13: “There are names, which Arabs have not coined for meanings at all, but Shar’ came and coined them for certain meanings,; while there are names, which Arabs did not have meanings for them before.” My question is: Are there examples for these types of names?
2. The following came in the Shakhsiyyah, vol III, p. 136 line 10: “Such as the term of Rooh (spirit) to denote the secret of life, and the realization of the relation with Allah, and Jibreel.” My question is: Is this a good example for a homonym (Ishtiraak), because the secret of life is a linguistic meaning, and the realization of the relation with Allah is a technical (Istilahi) meaning, ie specific conventional, and Gabriel is a divine meaning; where Ishtirak (homonym) is the multitude of linguistic meanings for the same term, which does not exist here.

 Answer:

 1 – The answer to the divine names is:

1. a) “There are names which Arabs did not put meanings to them at all and Shar’ came and put them for specific meanings”…

 Such as the beginnings of the surahs like alif lam meem, alif lam raa… These are names of surahs, but Arabs never coined them for meanings…

1. b) “And there are names which Arabs did not know their meanings before”…

 These are such as “Wuduu'”, where Arabs did not know its meaning till Shar’ put it to that term. This is not like Salah, which Arabs used for supplication (du’aa), and then Shar’ came and transferred it to the known Salah. For, Arabs did not know the meaning of Wudoo’  till Shar’ put it.

 2 – The issue of the homonym (mushtarak):

The linguistic meaning, together with the divine meaning or the conventional meaning are not included in the subject of homonyms (mushtarak), which is true … But this is the case if the divine meaning and the conventional meaning dominated while the linguistic meaning was abandoned or nearly so, such that when you hear the word, the mind turns to the divine or conventional meaning, without the need for a collaboration (qareenah).

 For example, the word of  Salah “prayer” has a linguistic meaning, which is “supplication”, and a divine meaning, which is the ” usual prayer – salah”. Transference to this meaning dominated such that when you hear the word “prayer – salah” the mind turns to the usual prayer – salah without the need for collaboration (qareenah).

 In this case it is incorrect to say the prayer (salah) is a homonym (mushtarak), thus meaning both supplication (du’aa) and the usual prayer (salah). This is because though these two meanings are different, but this difference between them is not the same such that the identification of the intended meaning requires collaboration when hearing the word. Rather, one of them has dominated over the other, such that the other was abandoned or nearly so, once the word was pronounced. This applies to the word  “Daabbah” (animal), which cannot be treated as a homonym that means “every thing that creeps/treads on the ground and the well known animal”. This is because though these two meanings are different, but this difference between them is not the same such that the identification of the intended meaning requires collaboration when hearing the word. Rather, one of them (namely the animal) has dominated over the other, such that the other was abandoned or nearly so, once the word was pronounced.

 These words and their likes of the linguistic, divine and conventional meanings as mentioned above do not come under the subject of homonyms (mushtarak). This is because the divine and conventional meanings have dominated over the linguistic meaning. So, each of these meanings is like the singular (mufrad) that carries one meaning. While the homonym indicates two or more different facts; so the identification of the intended meaning requires collaboration… This is like of the word of (‘ayn), which is common in ‘ayn (eye) with which we see, and ‘ayn which means water spring, and ‘ayn which means spy … It is clear there is differences in these meanings, and they need a collaboration to determine the intended meaning.

 As regards the technical or divine meaning that does not dominate, and the linguistic meaning that was abandoned or nearly so, it is allowed to involve them with the linguistic meaning in the subject of the homonyms (mushtarak). This is because they are all equal in the difference when they are heard, or nearly equal, without domination of one of them over the other; rather the intended meaning requires collaboration, and thus these meanings fall under homonyms.

 Thus, the word of spirit (rooh) came in many meanings:

 * It is the soul by which the body lives “secret of life”, and the Christ ( spirit of Allah Almighty” and Rooh ” Gabriel – peace be upon him”, as it came  in the saying of Allah “Rooh ul-qudus  – the Holy Spirit”. Rooh is also used to mean Qur’an, Wahy (revelation), Nafkh (blowing), the matter of prophethood, the rule of Allah, the Almighty, and the order of Allah…

 As you can see, these are meanings which are equal in the difference, where the divine meaning did not dominate over the linguistic meaning such that it was abandoned or nearly so. So, if you heard the word of the soul (Rooh), the mind would not turn to Gabriel, or Jesus, peace be upon them, or the Qur’an, or blowing, or the rule of Allah, the Almighty … without a collaboration (qareena).

 This applies to the technical meaning of “realization of the relation with Allah,”, which is not a general conventional fact like the word of Daabbah (animal), for example, such that when its linguistic meaning has been abandoned or nearly so, where this special conventional meaning “realization of the relation with Allah” dominated over the linguistic meaning “secret life …”. Rather, this technical meaning is not understood without collaboration from the mere hearing the word of spirit (rooh). Moreover, this word with this meaning is hardly mentioned by many scholars of ‘Usool except by us and our likes who understand this technical meaning …

 Since these meanings do not dominate over the linguistic meaning to the point it was abandoned or nearly so; they are rather equal in their difference and need collaboration for determining the intended meaning, so it is allowed to treat these meanings together with the linguistic meaning as common.

26 Rabi’ II 1432
2011/03/31

Is Basmalah a verse of Sura Fatiha?

Question:

The scholars differed about considering the Basmalah a verse of the Fatiha and of the remaining verses.  Some of them denied it under the pretext of being not Mutawaatir, while some else approved it on the grounds of being established in the Quraan through writing; and they supported their views by quoting the Ahadeeth. So, what is the correct opinion on this issue? Then, is the difference in such issue justified? May Allah bless you?) End.

Answer:

As regarding the Basmalah, it is from the Quraan as part of the verse of ants (An-Naml):

(It is from Solomon and it is Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.)

But at the beginning of Al-Fatihah or the beginning of the chapters, it is subject to difference in terms of being a verse of the surah/chapter or it just separates between the surahs/chapters … This difference does not harm, because both sides admit it’s from the Qur’an in the Surat of the ants (An-Naml), and the difference is over its place at the beginning of the surahs, except surah of At-Tawbah. In other words: Is it a verse at the beginning of the surahs, or is it a verse at the beginning of the Fatihah; or it is not a verse, neither at the beginning of the surahs and nor at the beginning of the Fatihah?  … As long as everyone acknowledges it as a verse from the Quraan in Surat An-Naml, then the difference over it at the beginning of the Surahs has no affect except  in whether it is read or not in the prayer, at the beginning of the Fatihah or at the beginning of the surahs, openly or secretly, according to the Islamic rules deduced by mujtahideen.

21 Rabee’ II 1432

26/3/2011

The meaning of the silence of the prophet(pbuh) about an action in front of him

Question:

It came in the book of Shakhsiiyyah, vol 3, p. 103 under the subject of “the silence of the prophet, peace be upon him” the following: “If somebody did an actual action in front of the Prophet, peace be upon him, or at his time, while he was aware of it and able to denounce it, and remained silent about it” … etc. The following came in the next page: “and that the Messenger was able to denounce it”…

Does this restriction “and that the Messenger was able to denounce it” have an actual reality in the life of the Prophet, peace be upon him? Is it envisaged practically that the Prophet, peace be upon him, might be unable to denounce it at any time? For the Messenger, peace be upon him, is capable to convey the message and denounce the evil always, and he would not delay the statement from its right time. Please explain the issue.

Answer:

As regarding the question about the silence of the Messenger, peace be upon him, scholars of ‘Usool, when they define any matter, they approach it from all of its aspects so that the definition would be inclusive (jaami’) and restrictive (maani’) .

So they have placed here in the definition this restriction “unable to denounce it” so as no one would object to the definition, by speaking about the possibility that something might happen to the Prophet, peace be upon him, as it happens to humans, in terms of the inability to denounce for some reason, so the silence would not then be evidence of agreement!

In conclusion, this restriction is to make the definition inclusive and conclusive, and it had no actual reality in the era of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Al-Aamidy commented in his book al-‘Ihkam on this restriction in the definition, and he responded to those who refused the silence as evidence and said: “It is possible that the Messenger, peace be upon him, did not forbid him because there was something that prevented him from denouncing”. Al-‘Aamidy in his response to them said:” What they have mentioned of the likelihood of the presence of a preventor , though this might be the case rationally, but in origin such a preventor does not exist, “in relation with the Prophet, peace be upon him.

21 Rabee’ II 1432

26/3/2011

Are all prophets may be right in their ijtihad or it is only the Mustafa (saw)?

Question

The question arises due to the fact that, Ibn Kathir while explaining Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayah No.(78) quoted Abdullah Ibn Masood and Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who said that the Prophet David (PBUH) gave judgment, between the sheepherder and farm owner whose farm was grazed by the sheep of herder, to give the sheep to the farm owner. Subsequently, his son Solomon (PBUH) told him to change this, O Prophet of Allah! Then he explained the judgment on them in this way: the farm owner will take the sheep to make use of its milk while the sheepherder will cultivate the land as it was in the past i.e. before it was grazed by the sheep and Allah said (We gave Solomon insight into the case). Does it not mean that the Prophet David (PBUH) used his Ijtihadd, which was corrected by the Prophet Solomon (PBUH)?

Answer: All the prophets are infallible in conveying the rules and regulations i.e. they do not transmit rules from their own minds. His being a prophet or messenger obligates that he is infallible in conveying the ahkam of Sharia, i.e. he does not strives by himself in conveying the ahkam of Sharia. Please refer to the “Infallibility (‘ismah) of the Prophets and It is not allowed on the part of the Messenger (SAW) that he be a mujtahid” in the book “Islamic Personality-part 1“. So, the prophets in terms of conveying the ahkam of Sharia do not make ijtihad from their own mind, rather through a revelation from Allah (SWT).

Therefore, the judgment made by the prophets Dawood and Sulaiman (May peace be upon them) was a revelation. Moreover, the judgment made by Sulaiman (May peace be upon him) abrogated the judgment given by Dawood ((May peace be upon him), refer to the speech of Allah (SWT) (And remember David and Solomon, when both gave judgment concerning the field into which some people’s sheep had strayed and grazed by night. We were witness to their judgment. We gave Solomon insight into the case. Yet We gave sound judgment and knowledge to both of them. And We caused the mountains to join David in extolling Our limitless glory, and likewise the birds. We are indeed able to do [all things].

In the words of Allah (SWT) (We gave Solomon insight into the case) is evidence that the judgment of Solomon was a revelation, and as well as His (SWT) speech (and We gave sound judgment and knowledge to both of them) is a proof that the judgment by Dawood was also through revelation. Since the judgment made by Solomon came later, so it abrogated the earlier judgment.

For your information, it was stated in some interpretations that both David and Solomon made ijtihad and the judgment of Solomon was more appropriate. Those who expressed this opinion do not deny on the part of prophets and messengers to make ijtihad in conveying the ahkam of Sharia. They say that Allah (SWT) corrects their ijtihad if they make mistake…

6^th Muharram 1433 AH.

1^st December, 2011 CE.

Is political struggle and intellectual struggle is a style (means) and not a method?

Question: It has been reported in a political motivational statement issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir that political struggle is a style and not a method. If political struggle and intellectual struggle is a style (means) and not a method, then does it imply that interaction stage, which is actually a method, and the political & intellectual activities during interaction are also from the styles? It may be noted that there are clear Ayaat in the Quran regarding political struggle and intellectual clash with the kufr leaders of Quraysh?

 

Answer:

Indeed the interaction is from the method.

Also it is pertinent to recall that political & intellectual work are as well from the method, the interaction stage requires this and it can not be completed without it. Indeed, without the political and intellectual work, it is not interaction.

As for political struggle and intellectual clash, they are actually flagrant defiances of the political and intellectual work and this challenge is the style. It may be necessary in one instance and may not be required in another situation.

Within this context, the distribution of leaflets may be means of struggle when distributed openly in defiance; or it may be distributed normally…

The clash and the struggle may be defined to include clear defiance etc. and these are means or styles.

As for what has been mentioned in the Quran, these are restricted situations regarding the kufr leaders, with whom there was struggles over matters other than simply their kufr, they were at war with Islam and Muslims extensively despite clear evidences of truth… therefore the Quran has mentioned the intensive attack in those Ayaat…Yet if you were to count these Ayaat, they are few even though the kuffar were plentiful.

The Prophet (saw) employed means and styles of varying degrees of strength against the kuffar, for instance, when (probably ‘Utabah), a leader of the Quraysh went to the Prophet (saw), the Prophet (saw) addressed him with persuasive arguments, great wisdom and in a gentle & effective way. Thus when he came back to the Quraysh, he was a distinctly different self, unlike the way when he had left them to go to the Prophet (saw). This has been reported by the leaders of the Quraysh themselves who had deputed him to the Prophet (saw). He was especially all praise for what he had heard from the Prophet (saw)…

On the other hand, another leader of the Quraysh (Wa’il) came to the Prophet (saw) carrying bone ashes with him. He showed the ashes to the Prophet (saw) and asked: “ Can your Creator bring these ashes back to life”? the Prophet (saw) replied to him: “ Yes, He can and He will bring them back to life” the Prophet (saw) added: “ and He (swt) will make you enter hell”…Here the Prophet (saw) was not content with merely replying to his question, but added his severe comment as well…

Thus, means or styles may be varying degree of severity or it may be light, this will depend on what is pertinent to the other party.

And to further clarify:

Recite the following Ayah:

]اذهب أنت وأخوك بآياتي ولا تنيا في ذكري. اذهبا إلى فرعون إنه طغى. فقولا له قولاً ليناً لعله يتذكر أو يخشى[

“Go you and your brother with My Ayât (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.), and do not, you both, slacken and become weak in My remembrance. Go both of you to Fir’aun (Pharaoh), verily, he has transgressed (all bounds in disbelief and disobedience and behaved as an arrogant and as a tyrant). And speak to him mildly, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear (Allâh).“[TMQ Taha:42-44]

It is clear from this Ayah that what is required here of this ayah is the intellectual or ideological debate in a soft and gentle manner.

Now on the same topic, recite another Ayah which is between Musa (a.s) and Fir’awn but on a different aspect. Here Musa presented evidences and arguments to Fir’awn, but he persisted in his arrogant and repressive ways. Now Musa (as) did not address him in a gentle manner rather, he talked to Fir’awn in a severe style and called him as bewitched who is cursed with destruction. the Ayah is:

]ولقد آتينا موسى تسع آيات بينات فاسئل بني إسرائيل إذ جاءهم فقال له فرعون إني لأظنك يا موسى مسحورا. قال لقد علمت ما أنزل هاؤلاء إلا رب السماوات والأرض بصائر وإني لأظنك يا فرعون مثبوراً[

“And indeed We gave Mûsâ (Moses) nine clear signs. Ask then the Children of Israel, when he came to them, then Fir’aun (Pharaoh) said to him: “O Mûsâ (Moses)! I think you are indeed bewitched.” [TMQ al Isra’ :101]

The soft and gentle manner of discussion in the beginning was to present the the evidences and arguments, but after having presented clear and decisive arguments and with Fir’awn still persisting in his arrogance, the narrative is severe…..

I hope the picture is completely clear.

It is for this reason that you find texts in our books regarding the political work during the interaction stage: (… the main points of the political work are the ideological clash and political struggle…).

The clash and struggle that emerge during this stage are because of the confrontation with the leaders of kufr generally, so for them this style is suitable. But with other kuffar and at other times, it is likely that political & ideological work is required of a different style.

I may repeat that political & ideological work is a method which is indespensible during the interaction stage, it is only the intensity of the political and ideological work, i.e clash and struggle which are means and styles and are to be used as required at different places and times.

14 Safar, 1429 A.H

20^th February, 2008 C.E

Difference between public opinion and not the public awareness

Question: It is mentioned in the book “Methodology of HT” (It is by favour from Allah on the people that there now exists a public opinion for Islam, which has now become the hope of the Ummah for its salvation. And the name of Khilafah has become constantly repeated on the tongue of every person when previously it was not. So establishing the Khilafah and bringing back the rule of Allah becomes the hope of all Muslims.) (Methodology of HT, page 50 Arabic).

Hence the Question is: The words mentioned herewith are the public opinion and not the public awareness; so what is the reason for that? In any case, while discussing the second phase of the method, it was stated: (Collective culturing of the masses by the thoughts and rules of Islam which the party adopted ….. so as to give the Ummah a public awareness and to interact with it.) (Methodology of HT, page 43 Arabic). i.e. the public awareness has been specified and not the public opinion …? So, why is such difference?

Then what is the meaning of “public awareness”? and how is the public awareness is built in favor of Khilafah, for example?

Answer: We have mentioned on several occasions “public opinion emanating from public awareness”… and whenever we mention only “the public opinion” or only “the public awareness” it is correct, in view of the fact that the required public opinion emanates from the public awareness. Both expressions are from the same series and mentioning a part of the series with the omission of other one is correct.

(Among His Signs is that He created you from dust; and then Behold ye are men scattered).

 

The Almighty says (He Who has made everything which He has created most Good. He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay)

 

The Almighty says (we created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape)

 

The Almighty says (He created man (Adam) from sounding clay like the clay of pottery)

 

You can see the above verses mentioning sometimes the dust, and at some other times, the clay, sounding clay from mud moulded into shape, sounding clay like the clay of pottery; “And the sounding clay is a dry clay which is rattled and not cooked, and if cooked, becomes like the clay of pottery”.

For the reason that they all are from the same series: dust, then clay, then clay dried up without being cooked, and then the cooked clay … and mentioning any part of the series is correct.

And thus to say “public opinion emanating from a public awareness”, is a series. You are right when you utter them together “public opinion emanating from a public awareness” or you may simply say “public opinion” or “public awareness”. All of them are correct and there is no difference, particularly at a time when the context is clear.

As for the meaning of public awareness, it is as follows:

* The word Al Waie is derived from “Waie” which linguistically as mentioned in Lisan Al Arab: (is to learn something by heart. For instance, he comprehended the thing and speech very well: i.e. remembered, understood and accepted it, and therefore he is a conscious and vigilant person. Similarly, this person is more conscious than that one i.e. is more capable of memorizing and understanding the things, and it was narrated in one Hadith: May Allah make the one, who heard my statement and committed it to memory, to flourish. Many a message bearer is more conscious than hearer).

* In terminology, this awareness is all-inclusive of the most prominent aspect of the issue.

As for how a public awareness on the Khilafah to be created, so it is not a partial knowledge of the word Khilafah; rather the word also includes some prominent rules related to the subject matter such as it is an obligation, the Khalifah has to be one and the Bai’ah has to be made through consent and choice … as well as some prominent powers endowed with the Khalifah such as the care of internal and external affairs of the Islamic State … We say here “some” because the public awareness does not mean knowing all the details but some brief knowledge is enough so that the man get aware of the Khilafah for the sake of public awareness … and like this are the other matters.

22^nd Shawwal, 1432 AH

20^th September, 2011 CE.

The manner Hizb ut Tahrir uses to express itself

As-Salaamu Alaikum,

I have a comment about one of the pages from the book, Hizb ut Tahrir, which was written in 09/05/1985 that describes the Hizb. On page 20, I have found that the Hizb’s method in describing its party makes itself nearer to the level of a deity and maybe this is a reason for the delay in achieving our victory up until now. This is because it states in the book: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes that have led to the failure of the movements that were established to revive Muslims by Islam’. Here it (the Hizb) has denied for itself the characteristic of making errors and this characteristic is reserved alone for the Lord of the worlds since every creation errs. However had you stated this and added by the permission of Allah then perhaps this would have been a cause for Allah aiding us. Just as the book states: ‘In fact the Ummah must embrace it and proceed with it because it is the only (al-waheed) party that manifests its idea…’ So ‘Al-Wahdaaniyah’ (oneness/uniqueness) whilst being tied to specific attributes, I find that they are specific to Allah the Lord of the worlds and that there is no other creation that is unique beside Him. Due to this I view that the wording ‘Al-Waheed’ (only) contains some fallacies within it and perhaps has delayed the victory of Allah for us.

From Dede Tahboub

 

Answer:

Wa Alaikumu Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Baarakatuhu,

It appears that some confusion has occurred with you in respect to the meaning of the quoted text: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes that have led to the failure of the movements that were established to revive Muslims by Islam’ as found in the profile.

The Hizb has mentioned this in the profile after having listed the reasons for the failure of the movements in the book At-Takattul (Structuring of a Party), in which it states: ‘Upon scrutinizing these movements and their attempts for revival, one can conclude that the causes for their failure (from a structural point of view) are due to the following four factors:

First: The movements were established upon a general undefined idea (fikrah), which was vague, or unclear. In addition, the idea lacked focus, purity, and clarity.

Second: The movements did not define a method (Tareeqah) to implement their idea; rather, they proceeded through improvised and twisted means. Furthermore, their means were undefined and ambiguous.

Third: The movements relied upon individuals who lacked full awareness, and a well-focused determination. Individuals were driven solely by their desire or zeal to work.

Fourth: The individuals carrying the responsibility of these movements did not have a correct bond amongst themselves. They were merely bound by being members in a structure that manifested itself in certain actions and titles’.

After that the Hizb made Ijtihaad and avoided all of those causes. So what is the error in the statement: ‘It has avoided all of the shortcomings and causes..?’ And what is the relationship of that with the fact that every created makes mistakes? And that Allah Alone is free of every deficiency?

Now I will ask you: If you were a school teacher and you said to your student after considering her answer: ‘There are shortcomings in your answer like in this and this’ and then you specified the shortcomings to her as 1, 2 and 3 etc… Then the student reviewed them and avoided those shortcomings and then returned to you stating that she had avoided all of the shortcomings that you had mentioned and said: ‘O kind teacher, this is my new answer.’ Thus has the student characterised herself with the attribute of Lord of the worlds?

As for the other point you raised when you quoted: ‘In fact the Ummah must embrace it and proceed with it because it is the only (Al-Waheed) party that manifests its idea…’ I shall quote to you the paragraph that preceded this before discussing the paragraph that you have questioned about.

It is as follows:

‘The party understood intellectually and profoundly the idea and method from the Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah and Qiyaas (analogy). It didn’t take the reality as the source of its thinking but rather the subject of its thoughts as to change it according to the rules of Islam. It committed itself with the method of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in his work to convey the Da’wah in Makkah until he established the state in Madinah. The party made the Aqeedah and what it adopted of thoughts and rules the binding that binds together its members’.

And due to that it was worthy of being embraced by the Ummah and the Ummah to proceed along with it. Indeed it is obligatory upon her to embrace it and to proceed along with it because it is the only Hizb that manifest its idea, foresees its method, understands it issue and commits itself to follow the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم without deviating from it and without letting anything dissuade it from achieving its aim’. Hizb profile quoted from the book: Hizb ut Tahrir.

You have commented upon the statement: ‘because it is the only Hizb that manifests its idea, foresees its method…’ stating that the Wahdaaniyah (oneness/uniqueness) is from the attributes of the Creator سبحانه وتعالى.

My honourable sister, this is a different topic as the Hizb does not say that it is unique or alone in every matter but rather it has deduced a thought and method correctly from the Shari’ah evidences in accordance to the principles of Usool. Therefore it is natural that it would manifest this idea that it has deduced. And the discussion is not about a person but rather about a Hizb (party) that has adopted this idea and method. So everyone who manifests/ digests this idea and method; then s/he is from the Hizb and this applies upon her/himself. As such it applies upon the Hizb that has deduced its thought and method to say that it alone is the one that digests it. This is because it is the one that had deduced it, studied it, worked for it and struggled for its sake. So what is the harm in saying that it is alone in digesting this thought? And what is the relationship between this statement and the Wahdaaniyah (oneness/uniqueness) of Allah سبحانه وتعالى Al-Ahad, As-Samad and to whom there is nothing that compares?

I ask Allah سبحانه وتعالى to provide you with the guidance to reach the best of the matter and to open your chest to that which is good and Allah سبحانه وتعالى is the One who guides to the correct path.

Your Brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

22 Rajab 1434 AH

01 June 2013 CE

Regarding Hizb ut Tahrir and the Syrian Revolution

Question: Greetings to the Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah from Mamoun Shehadeh, journalist and political analyst I would like to ask you, what were the motivating factors that made Hizb ut Tahrir involve itself in the Syrian revolution and why did it not do so in other places? Answer: Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu Our work my dear brother is the same and it does not change in every place that we are able to work. Our work is carrying the Dawah for the resumption of the Islamic way of life via the establishment of the Rightly Guided Khilafah in accordance to the methodology that the Messenger of Allah (saw) demonstrated to us from the time that he was tasked with the mission in Makkah Al-Mukarramah until he established the State in Al-Madeenah Al-Munawarah. So we make contact with the Ummah to call them to the Haqq (truth) and that the Khilafah is a great Fard that it is obligatory for them to work towards. We interact with the Ummah upon this, working with it and through it to accomplish this matter. In addition we make contact with the people of power and request their support to establish the Khilafah and we advise them not to waste their efforts in vain by finding it sufficient to change people without changing the entire man-made secular system. Rather they need to exert their efforts, strengths and sacrifices to change the man-made system from its roots with its rulers and laws, and establish the Khilafah. We make this matter clear to them comprehensively just as it has come in Islam, so the one who responds positively to us we direct him with the correct direction whilst the one who does not respond cannot be coerced into it but rather we make Duaa for him to be guided. This is what we did before the revolutions, what we do during them and what we will do afterwards. However the revolutions provided a wider range for the people to listen to the word of truth without them fearing the security agencies like the situation had been before when the people would keep their distance from us fearing the security agencies. For this reason it is noticeable today to see the people surrounding themselves around us and turning towards us and the presence of a strong active movement of interaction between us and them. And as such it is noticeable that the scope of the Dawah that we carry has widened and increased from before because the fear barrier has been removed from the people. And it is because of this that you have noticed the strength of our movement and its increase in the Ummah more than it had been previously noticeable. This is not because we were not working before but rather because the people before the revolutions had been fearful to move in our direction out of fear from the security apparatus which would pursue us and all those whom we made contact with. So this created a hindrance to our work and placed a barrier in front of the people if they wanted to approach us. And it is important to make known that the strength of our work is not noticeable in the areas of revolutions alone but rather it can be noticed in other regions and occasionally it can have greater momentum there than in the regions of revolutions. Perhaps you have seen or heard of our activities in Pakistan for example where the strength is clear and on par or similar to what is noticed in Syria. This is despite the absence of a revolution in Pakistan ate the present time. In conclusion, our work was present before the revolution but it widened in a way that caught the attention during the revolution and specifically in Syria. This is because the barrier of fear had collapsed in the face of the people uprising against oppression and tyranny. This is what is new in this matter but we had been working before the revolutions, through them and after them. However if you meant by the wording ‘involvement in the revolution’ that we now have a military wing, then this is an error and this does not exist. We do not have a military wing attached to us either in the past or anytime after. This is because we are a political party whose ideology is Islam that does not perform any material actions in the stage of Dawah. Rather it only requests the support from the people of power so they can establish the state just as that which happened with the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the second Bayah (pledge) of Al-Aqabah. And it is hoped that this will be realised soon. ((إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْرًا )) “Indeed Allah will surely accomplish His purpose: Verily, for all things has Allah appointed a due proportion.” Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

30 Sha’aban 1434 2013/07/19

The refusal of Hizb ut Tahrir and its Ameer to answer criticism and make corrections

Question: Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah, Is it true what has spread in Indonesia that Hizb ut Tahrir and its Ameer refuse to hear criticism, are not open to making corrections and engage in discussions of knowledge, to the point where it is said: “If you want to change Hizb ut Tahrir then it is necessary to become its Ameer first!!” We want to engage in discussions in a variety of subject areas related to the Hukm Shar’i, Islamic thought, and administrative matters besides others. Answer: Wa Alaikumu as-Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baarakatuhu, We welcome any objective discussion based upon what is found in our books in terms of concepts and rules (Ahkam) whilst not discussing that which has been said in allegations in other books. Meaning that we accept for it to be said: ‘So and so was mentioned in this book…’ and then afterwards you may say what you like in terms of questioning or criticism in relation to it. We will then respond by the permission of Allah. However we do not accept to waste time by transmitting that which has been falsely fabricated against us by some of those who harbor hatred against Islam. So it could be asked of us for example: ‘as mentioned in this book by so and so that you are so and so…’ So it is this type that we do not like to waste our time upon, rather we leave these allegations to Allah Al-Azeez Al-Qahhaar. Likewise we do not discuss administrative structural matters because the place for this is not this page. My brother, indeed we do not place a single word in our books except after a thorough study of the evidences and its angle of deduction. For this reason we are ready for their discussion and answer any enquiry that relates to them. Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

14 Rajab 1434 2013/05/24

Regarding the Difference between Al-Kutla (structure) or At-Takatul (structuring) and the Ideological Party

Question: Assalamu Alaikum We are missing you, I hope that we are shaded by the crest of the Khilafah soon insha’Allah. I have a question: What is the difference between Al-Kutla (structure) or At-Takatul (structuring) and the ideological party? Answer: Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatulahi Wa Barakatuhu 1.    Al-Kutla (structure) and At-Takatul (structuring) do not differ in terms of a definition of a group of people that are bonded together by a specific bond to achieve a specific objective. It is permissible to call the gathering a Kutla (structure) and it is permissible to call it Takatul (structuring). 2.    The phrase “At-Takatul” is stronger in terms of the meaning than the term “Al-Kutla” and it gives the sense of activity more than the phrase “Kutla”, due to the increase in the construction is an increase in meaning. The phrase “At-Takatul” is more suitable for a large gathering that in motion, more so than the phrase “Kutla”. 3.    As for the ideological party, it depends upon what is adopted by “At-Takatul”. If built upon an ideology i.e. a creed from which a system emanates, then it is an ideological party. It will be a correct ideological party if its creed and the system that emanates from it are correct. And it will be an incorrect and misguided ideological party if its creed and the system that emanates from it are wrong and deviating. Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

22 Dhu al-Qi’dah 1434 2013/09/28