Will they make shirk halal next?

[neelu]

Salam,

I found this post on another forum about an Urdu jummah khutba at a masjid in the East London area:

Imam Shaab Has Made Interest Halaal!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salaams to all my dear brothers and sisters

Yes, you read the title correctly. My brother in law went to Jummah on Friday and the Imam said that Interest is Halaal all 100% of it.
He said that the situation in the days of the Messenger (saw) of Allah (swt) was different thus it was made Haraam, but in this day and age it is Halaal. He said that the highest of scholars all had a meeting and it was decided that it was permissible.

My brother in law also said that men in the congregation started getting happy after hearing this news, they must be those who have large sums of money and now that they have been told that interest is permissible they can look forward to making even more money.

When I heard this my jaw just dropped. The hadith of the Messenger (saw) Allah (swt) came to mind: when some of the companions became Muslims who were previously of the Jews the Messenger (saw) said that “You used to worship your rabbis, to this the companions said we were of the Jews but we did not worship them, the Messenger (saw) said did they not make the Haraam Halaal and the Halaal Haraam? And in this your used to obey them this is how you worshiped them.

My brothers and sisters what are we Muslims coming to in this world?

May Allah (swt) make is easy for us all. For with out His (swt) we are truly at a loss.

My dear brothers and sisters do not sell your Deen for the sake of this world. Hold tight to the rope of Allah (swt).

Wa salaam

Your bro

Abdal Majid

Source:

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142952

[Baatil_Ka_Kaatil]

Salaam

On the subject of Jumah khutba's has anyone noticed how the sending blessings on the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his family (as) is missed out even though I was once told it is an inaugral part of the Khutba.

Also I think making Riba halal has got to do with the fact that they do not see the banking institutions as legitimate so they are allowed to enter into haraam contracts with them just to get money off them because they are non muslim. this is what I was told when a brother tried to explain to me why Riba is allowed if we take it off the non muslims in kufaar countries.

[jungle_sniper]

reminds me of a brother i knew from my student days whose father used to work with a 'modern muslim' woman. when the uncle told her that she ought to act/live islamically (she used to eat pork/ham and that sort of rubbish), she told him that the only reason why the flesh of pigs was forbidden in islam was because there were no fridges in the days of rasul-allah (saw). but nowadays as there are fridges we can keep the meet fresh - na'ootho billah...

[Abu-Musa]

The Wealth of the Kuffar in Dar al-Harb is permissible to take.

The Kuffar can call it Money, Pounds, Euros, Dollars, 'Interest', Credit, Loans....

This is none of our business as the Wealth has no sanctity... and we do not recognise the Kufr Economic System.


Riba is HARAM... But in Dar al-Harb there is no such thing as Riba.... just Wealth with no sanctity.

Anyone who recognises it as 'interest' (which is based on the kuffars categorisation of it according to their Kufr Laws/Economic System) means that such a person has "wittingly or unwittingly" recognised their Kufr Economic System!


:)

[al-muwahhid]

Salaam Abu Musa,

What Islamic evidence do you take to consider this land as dar-al-harb?

[Abu-Musa]

There are only two 'Dar' - Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Harb are synonymous.

Being of the opinion that there are only two, I would ask whats the evidence that its Dar al-Islam?

The relationship to the Wealth having no sanctity is linked to the Kuffar not having sanctity as people, which is seperate from the issue of Dar al-Harb. This was dealt with in previous threads...

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=7642#7642

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=6755#6755


Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam are descriptions for the Land.

Dar al-Islam is where the Laws are from Islam only and the Security/Authority is for Muslims.

Then there is Dar al-Harb which does not fulfil the criterea of Dar al-Islam.


These countries are at War (Harb) with Muslims, and even if they are not directly they are allied to those who are, and will be treated the same.

Imran b. Husain reported that the tribe of Thaqif was the ally of Banu 'Uqail. Thaqif took two persons from amongst the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as prisoners. The Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) took one person at Banu Uqail as prisoner, and captured al-'Adbi (the she-camel of the Holy Prophet) along with him. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to him and he was tied with ropes. He said: Muhammad. He came near him and said: What is the matter with you? Thereupon he (the prisoner) said: Why have you taken me as prisoner and why have you caught hold of one proceeding the pilgrims (the she-camel as she carried the Holy Prophet on her back and walked ahead of the multitude)? He (the Holy Prophet) said: (Yours is a great fault). I (my men) have caught hold of you for the crime of your allies...." [Muslim]


So we also treat people like those they ally themselves with, and they are treated in such a way due to there alliance.

It is sufficient that they are just Dar al-Harb even if they did not do anything. However in order to demonstrate the above, today the countires are allied with each other through the UN Charter.

The UN succeeded the League of Nations recognising colonial treaties and decarations. So it in effect recognises the Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot Agreement, San Remo Agreement... creation of Israel. Even if a few disagree, they do agree that outcome comes into legitimate effect even if they did not vote for it and accept the legality.

So they are all allies of each other...


"O you who Believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ' (friends, protectors, allies…), they are but Auliyâ' to one another..." [5:50]

[Peregrine_Falcon]

There are only two 'Dar' - Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Harb are synonymous.

The party adopts that Dar-al-Harb and Dar-al-Kufr are not synonymous. These terms used to describe specific applications of Islam to a given reality.

The party adopts that Dar-al-Harb are the lands outside of the authority of the Islamic State, territories that the State will eventually seek to rule over.

Dar-al-Kufr is what existed before the Prophet (SAW) established the Islamic State. Where the relationships between the people were governed by non-Islam, a situation that mirrors our reality.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

Imran b. Husain reported that the tribe of Thaqif was the ally of Banu 'Uqail. Thaqif took two persons from amongst the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as prisoners. The Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) took one person at Banu Uqail as prisoner, and captured al-'Adbi (the she-camel of the Holy Prophet) along with him. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to him and he was tied with ropes. He said: Muhammad. He came near him and said: What is the matter with you? Thereupon he (the prisoner) said: Why have you taken me as prisoner and why have you caught hold of one proceeding the pilgrims (the she-camel as she carried the Holy Prophet on her back and walked ahead of the multitude)? He (the Holy Prophet) said: (Yours is a great fault). I (my men) have caught hold of you for the crime of your allies...." [Muslim]

Did the Prophet (SAW) declare the blood and the property of Banu 'Uqail legitimate because they were in Dar-al-Harb? Did the Prophet (SAW) not invite them to Islam first? And how does this hadith validate your argument below... assuming that is what you are doing???


The Wealth of the Kuffar in Dar al-Harb is permissible to take.

The Kuffar can call it Money, Pounds, Euros, Dollars, 'Interest', Credit, Loans....

This is none of our business as the Wealth has no sanctity... and we do not recognise the Kufr Economic System.


Riba is HARAM... But in Dar al-Harb there is no such thing as Riba.... just Wealth with no sanctity.

[Abu-Musa]

Sanctities of the Kuffar (or lack of) has been addressed in previous threads...

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=7642#7642

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=6755#6755


The hadith is only proving that those who ally with the enemy are share the same treatment.

As for Dar al-Harb/Kufr. I do disagree with this, and take the understanding they are the same and that there are only two Dar and that there is no third.

A lot of HT literature talks about various wars that have taken place and certain states being beligerent enemies etc... so when 'Harb' is the reality then are the lands not described as such by the party? Also how is 'israel' classified and why?

[Peregrine_Falcon]

As for Dar al-Harb/Kufr. I do disagree with this, and take the understanding they are the same and that there are only two Dar and that there is no third.

I appreciate that you have a different understanding. But we however, take the opinion that there dar-al-harb and dar-al-kufr are not the same.

A lot of HT literature talks about various wars that have taken place and certain states being beligerent enemies etc... so when 'Harb' is the reality then are the lands not described as such by the party? Also how is 'israel' classified and why?
We do consider many non-Muslim countries to be beligerent, however in none of those literatures have we incorrectly referred to any land as dar-al-harb. Even before we confront "isreal" we seek to transform a part of dar-al-kufr to dar-al-islam in order to gain the material support for the dawa. As only then can a legitimate struggle take place.


Sanctities of the Kuffar (or lack of) has been addressed in previous threads...

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=7642#7642

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=6755#6755


As regards to the evidence you have presented, such as the Hadīth: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say ‘Lā ilāha ill-Allāh.’ For if they say that, then their blood and property are safe from me, except with its rights and their account will be with Allāh.” [Bukahri & Muslim] These do not establish that the disbelievers in origin do not have any sanctity. Rather, they establish the relationship between the Islamic state and other nations due to the wording "the people" which is plural.

Secondly, hadith such as this one “O Abū Hamzah, what is it that makes the blood and the wealth of the slave unlawful (i.e. protected)?” He said, “Whoever testifies that there is nothing worthy of worship but Allāh and faces our Qiblah and prays our prayer and eats from our slaughter; then he is a Muslim. For him is what is for the Muslims and upon him is what is upon the Muslims.” [Bukhari] are talking about the sanctity of the Muslim. It does not carry an opposite meaning due to what Allah says: ". . .do not take any human being's life (the life) which God has declared to be sacred -- otherwise than in (the pursuit of) justice an law" [6:151]

[Abu-Musa]

"And kill not the soul whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause…" [6:51]

Ibn Kathir(rh) said: “And kill not the soul whom Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause…’[6:51] And this is from that which He, Blessed be Him, the Most High, clearly stated the forbiddance by means of reaffirmation, otherwise it is included in the forbiddance of the Fawāhish (i.e. all kinds of elicit evil actions), that which is open from it and that which is hidden, as it has come in the two Sahīhs from Ibn Mas’ūd, may Allāh, the Most High, be pleased with him, that he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah(saw) said, ‘The blood of a Muslim individual who bears witness that there is nothing worthy of worship except Allāh and that I am the Messenger of Allāh is not permitted except in one of three; the fornicator who has been married, and the soul for the soul and the abandoner of his religion; the one who leaves the Jamā’ah (i.e. the general body of the Muslims).’ And in the phrasing of Muslim: ‘By the One who there is no one worthy of worship other than Him, the blood of a Muslim man…” – and he mentioned it (similarly). Al-A’mash said: ‘I narrated it to Ibrāhīm, then he narrated to me from Al-Aswad from ‘Ā’ishah likewise.’ And Abū Dāwūd and An- Nasā’ī narrated from ‘Ā’ishah, may Allāh be pleased with her, that the Messenger of Allāh(saw) said: ‘The blood of a Muslim individual is not permitted except in one of three branches; a ‘protected’ (i.e. married) fornicator, who is stoned and a man who intentionally murdered, then he is to be killed, and a man who leaves Islām and wages war against Allāh and His Messenger, then he is to be killed or crucified or expelled from the land.’ And this is the phrasing of An-Nasā’ī.

And from Amīr Al-Mu’minīn, ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān, that he said while surrounded (by his would-be killers): ‘I heard the Messenger of Allāh(saw) saying, ‘The blood of a Muslim individual is not permitted except in one of three; a man who disbelieves after his Islām, or commits fornication after ‘protection’ (i.e. marriage) or killed a soul for other than a soul.’ So by Allāh, I did not commit fornication in Jahiliyyah, nor in Islām nor did I wish for any religion other than it, after Allāh guided me, nor did I kill a soul. So for what are you killing me?’ – Narrated by the Imām, Ahmad and At-Tirmithī and An-Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah. And At-Tirmithī said, ‘This Hadīth is Hasan.’ And the forbiddance and the deterrence and the threat has come regarding the killing of the Mu’āhad, and he is the Musta’man (i.e. one who has been given an Amān) from the people of war, as Al-Bukhārī narrated from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet(saw), Marfū’ (i.e. elevated in the chain of narration): ‘Whoever kills a Mu’āhad, then he shall not smell the fragrance of Jannah, and verily, it is found from the travel distance of forty years.’ And from Abī Hurayrah, from the Prophet(saw) that he said: ‘Whoever kills a Mu’āhad who has the protection of Allāh and the protection of His Messenger, then he has broken the Thimmah of Allāh. So he shall not smell the fragrance of Jannah, and verily its fragrance is found from the travel distance of seventy years.’ – Narrated by Ibn Mājah and At-Tirmithī, who said, ‘Hasan Sahīh.’
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir]


Ibn Kathir(ra) explained the verse giving the ruling and restricted the impermissibility to the Muslim and to those who have a covenant of Aman, which makes their blood unlawful. And look to how he used specific evidences for the permissibility of killing Muslims (i.e. fornication, apostasy, murder) whereas he mentioned no specific restriction upon the disbelievers, other than those who are Mu’ahadin (under treaty/dhimma).

Imam Qurtubi(rh) and Tabari (rh) made the exact same distinctions regarding this verse, applying it only to a Believer or Mu’ahad, with ‘just cause’ referring to the specific texts which restrict the general meaning of the verse.

And ‘Abdur-Rahmān As-Sa’di (rh), may Allah be merciful to him, made it clear when he said:
“ ‘And kill not anyone whom Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause.’ It is the Muslim soul, from male and female and young and old and righteous and wicked, and the disbelieving one which is protected with the covenant (‘Ahd) and the promise (of safety).” [Mua’ssasat Risalah]

Muhammad(saw) said: “A Muslim is not killed due to a disbeliever” [Bukhari] which indicates the sanctity of the blood of a Muslim over the disbeliever.

These texts are a restriction on the generality of verse 6:51 – the general verse is not a restriction on the specific texts!?

So in conclusion the Asli Rule regarding Disbelievers is that they are NOT protected, they are not sacred. Unless they embrace Islam or enter into a treaty/dhimma with the Muslims. The verse you quote is not reference to them.


As for your stance on the Lands, waiting for Dar al-Islam to return before dealing with 'israel' in a 'legitimate struggle' as you call it. What basis is this upon?

Are you saying fighting 'israel' today is illegitimate? Please explain.

[al-muwahhid]

Salaam

On the subject of Jumah khutba's has anyone noticed how the sending blessings on the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his family (as) is missed out even though I was once told it is an inaugral part of the Khutba.

Also I think making Riba halal has got to do with the fact that they do not see the banking institutions as legitimate so they are allowed to enter into haraam contracts with them just to get money off them because they are non muslim. this is what I was told when a brother tried to explain to me why Riba is allowed if we take it off the non muslims in kufaar countries.

In the same way does he legitimise sexual intercourse with women as long as she is kaafir and in a kaafir country? If the blood, honour, and wealth has no sanctity in Dar al Harb, so then according to this incorrect understanding sexual intercourse and every then else haram is halaal in dar al harb?

[al-muwahhid]

Asalaamu Alaykum Abu Musa,

"And kill not the soul whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause…" [6:51]

I would like to know from where you get this verse. What is 6:51? Are you reffering to Surah Al Anfaal, verse 51? or something else.?? Please explain as I cannot find that verse in Surah Anfaal.

The verse with similar meaning I am aware of is in Surah Israa (17), verse 33, here's the full quote:
You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped. Meaning of Quran 17:33

In Arabic:
http://www.qurantransliteration.org/quran/017/c17_33.gif

And if you start reading from verse 31 in this Surah until verse 35, you will find that the subject matter is murder.

From what I'm aware Imam ibn kathir didn't apply the verse in the way you have in your post above and I am interested to know from where you copied the above article.

Salaam

[al-muwahhid]

Abu musa, please read my previous post above first.

Here's what Imam ibn Kathir says:

Prohibition of Unlawful Killing Allah forbids killing with no legitimate reason.


It was reported in the Two Sahihs that the Messenger of Allah said:


«لَا يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِىءٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ، إِلَّا بِإِحْدَى ثَلَاثٍ: النَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ، وَالزَّانِي الْمُحْصَنُ، وَالتَّارِكُ لِدِينِهِ الْمُفَارِقُ لِلْجَمَاعَة»


(The blood of a Muslim who bears witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, is not permissible (to be shed) except in three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder), an adulterer who is married, and a person who leaves his religion and deserts the Jama'ah.) The following is recorded in the books of the Sunan:


«لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا عِنْدَ اللهِ أَهْوَنُ مِنْ قَتْلِ مُسْلِم»


(If the world were to be destroyed, it would be of less importance to Allah than the killing of a Muslim.)


[وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَـناً]


(And whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the authority.) The authority is over the killer. The heir has the choice; if he wishes, he may have him killed in retaliation, or he may forgive him in return for the payment of the Diyah (blood money), or he may forgive him with no payment, as is reported in the Sunnah. The great scholar and Imam Ibn `Abbas understood from the general meaning of this Ayah that Mu`awiyah should take power, because he was the heir of `Uthman, who had been killed wrongfully, may Allah be pleased with him, and Mu`awiyah did eventually take power, as Ibn `Abbas said on the basis of this Ayah. This is one of the stranger of matters.


[فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّى الْقَتْلِ]


(But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life.) They said: this means the heir should not go to extremes in killing the killer, such as mutilating the body or taking revenge on persons other than the killer.


[إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُورًا]


(Verily, he is helped.) means, the heir is helped against the killer by the Shari`ah and by divine decree.


[وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلاَّ بِالَّتِى هِىَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّى يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَأَوْفُواْ بِالْعَهْدِ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْؤُولاً - وَأَوْفُوا الْكَيْلَ إِذا كِلْتُمْ وَزِنُواْ بِالقِسْطَاسِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً ]


(34. And come not near to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength. And fulfill (every) covenant. Verily, the covenant will be questioned about.) (35. And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight. That is good (advantageous) and better in the end.)

From the online english version: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=17&tid=28983