(Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of the Visitors of his Facebook Page "Fiqhi")
Answer to a Question The Abrogator and the Abrogated
To Al-Mawardi
Question:
Question is,
We have discussed about our method to re-establishing the Khilafah with a brother. I was answered by a brother that to do political non-violent actions and seeking Nusrah in Mecca before Hijrah was abrogated by the Quranic ayah which is,
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ كُفُّوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِّنْهُمْ يَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ كَخَشْيَةِ اللَّهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْيَةً وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لِمَ كَتَبْتَ عَلَيْنَا الْقِتَالَ لَوْلَا أَخَّرْتَنَا إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْيَا قَلِيلٌ وَالْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِّمَنِ اتَّقَىٰ وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا
"Have you not seen those who were told, 'Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah'? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or with [even] greater fear. They said, 'Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.' Say, 'The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears Allah. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].'" (QS An-Nisa [4]: 77)
In this ayah Allah ordered to do Jihad which abrogated previous Hukm (holding back their hands). So what will be the answer to those brother I give. Jazakallahu Khair my brother.
From Your Brother, Asif Sulaiman
Answer:
Waalaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
First: It appears that the person who questioned you has some confusion regarding the subject of abrogation (naskh). Consequently, he thought that the obligation of Jihad in Madinah was an abrogation of the Messenger’s ﷺ lack of permission for Jihad in Makkah. The reality of the matter is that there is no abrogation. This is because abrogation occurs when a general address (khitab) comes from the Legislator (ash-Shari') charging us with an action, and then a subsequent general address comes from the Legislator preventing the continuation of the ruling established by the previous general legal address. There must be a total contradiction between the two addresses with no possibility of reconciling them, and the circumstances of the previous address or the case it treated must be no different from the circumstances and case of the subsequent address. Otherwise, each address would be specific to its own circumstances and case. To clarify this, I will mention some examples:
1- Examples of Abrogation:
A- The abrogation of the obligation to face Jerusalem with the obligation to face the Kaaba:
قَدْ نَرَى تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْضَاهَا فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنْتُمْ فَوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُ
"We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]." (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 144)
The circumstances and the state of facing the first qiblah and the second qiblah are the same for the person praying.
B- The abrogation of the prohibition of visiting graves and its subsequent permission:
كُنْتُ نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ أَلا فَزُورُوهَا
"I had forbidden you to visit graves, but now visit them." (Narrated by Muslim)
Here as well, the circumstances and the state of visiting or not visiting the graves are the same.
In all these examples, abrogation occurs because they are general addresses directed at the Muslims, the circumstances of the previous and subsequent addresses are the same, and the contradiction between them is total—meaning they cannot be reconciled. Thus, the subsequent address abrogates the previous one.
2- Examples of Non-Abrogation:
- Fasting is an obligation upon those capable:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ أَيَّامًا مَعْدُودَاتٍ
"O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous - [fasting for] a limited number of days." (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 183-184)
- But for the sick person or the traveler, it is permissible to break the fast:
فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ
"So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of other days [must be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]." (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 184)
In this case, it is not said that the second ayah abrogated the first. Rather, it is said that each ruling applies to its own circumstance and case. Fasting is an obligation on the healthy, resident person, but breaking the fast is permissible for the sick or the traveler. Or it is said that the address of the first ayah is general for Muslims, while the address of the second ayah is specific to the sick or the traveler.
Second: Regarding the noble ayah that is the subject of the question, there is no abrogation in it. The circumstances of the Muslims in Makkah were that they were oppressed, tortured, and living under the authority of the disbelievers. For a wisdom known to Allah, Jihad was not made obligatory upon them then. Therefore, the Messenger ﷺ did not permit that group of Muslims to fight when they sought it urgently in Makkah. Al-Hakim narrated in Al-Mustadrak and said this is a sahih hadith according to the conditions of Al-Bukhari: From Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas (ra), that Abdur-Rahman bin Awf and some of his companions came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: "O Prophet of Allah, we were in a state of honor while we were polytheists, but when we believed, we became humiliated." He said:
إِنِّي أُمِرْتُ بِالْعَفْوِ فَلا تُقَاتِلُوا الْقَوْمَ
"I have been commanded to forgive, so do not fight the people."
When he moved to Madinah, Allah commanded him to fight, but they held back. So Allah (swt) revealed:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ كُفُّوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ يَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ
"Have you not seen those who were told, 'Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah'? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men..." (QS An-Nisa [4]: 77)
The understanding of the ayah is that we should not do what they did—meaning we should not rush for an order to be legislated and then, when it is legislated, be slow in its implementation and thus be among those blamed.
Thus, because the circumstances are different, we say there is no abrogation. Rather, the ruling of Makkah was a special case where Allah did not obligate fighting the disbelievers in those days for a wisdom known to the All-Knowing, All-Wise. As for Madinah, Allah made Jihad obligatory there, and since that date, Jihad is continuous until the Day of Judgment. The evidences for this are:
Al-Bukhari devoted a chapter in his Sahih named: (Chapter: Jihad is continuous with the righteous and the wicked ruler, due to the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: "Good is tied to the forelocks of horses until the Day of Resurrection.")
Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih: Abu Nu’aym told us, Zakariyya told us, from Amir, Urwa al-Bariqi told us that the Prophet ﷺ said:
الْخَيْلُ مَعْقُودٌ فِي نَوَاصِيهَا الْخَيْرُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ الْأَجْرُ وَالْمَغْنَمُ
"Good is tied to the forelocks of horses until the Day of Resurrection: [namely] reward and spoils." (Also narrated by Muslim)
The phrase "Good is tied to the forelocks of horses" is a metaphor for Jihad.
- Al-Bayhaqi narrated in Al-Sunan al-Kubra from Anas bin Malik (ra) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
ثَلاثٌ مِنْ أَصْلِ الإِيمَانِ، الْكَفُّ عَمَّنْ قَالَ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللَّهُ، لا يُكَفِّرُهُ بِذَنْبٍ، وَلا يُخْرِجُهُ مِنَ الإِسْلامِ بِعَمَلٍ، وَالْجِهَادُ مَاضٍ مُنْذُ بَعَثَنِي اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إِلَى أَنْ يُقَاتِلَ آخِرُ أُمَّتِي الدَّجَّالَ لا يُبْطِلُهُ جَوْرُ جَائِرٍ وَلا عَدْلُ عَادِلٍ، وَالإِيمَانُ بِالأَقْدَارِ
"Three things are of the roots of faith: To refrain from [attacking] one who says 'There is no god but Allah' and not to declare him a disbeliever for any sin, nor to expel him from Islam for any action; Jihad is continuous from the time Allah sent me until the last of my Ummah fights the Dajjal, and it is not nullified by the tyranny of a tyrant or the justice of a just ruler; and belief in the divine decrees."
Thus, Jihad is continuous until the Day of Judgment; it is not abrogated and cannot be suspended. Every Muslim ruler, whether he is a Khalifah or not, if he declares Jihad against the disbelievers, then Jihad is performed with him to fight the disbelievers, and the Mujahideen are rewarded by Allah according to their intentions.
Third: It appears that the one who questioned you or debated you regarding the ayah wanted to say: "Why doesn't Hizb ut-Tahrir use Jihad in its work to establish the Khilafah, knowing that the lack of fighting in Makkah was abrogated in Madinah?" It is as if he confused Jihad with the work to establish the Khilafah, thinking they are one and the same issue. This is a mistaken assumption. We have previously answered a question on 22/09/2013 regarding this subject, and I will quote some of what was mentioned in that answer, as it contains further clarification for the one who debated you on the matter, so perhaps he may be guided to the rightest course, by the permission of Allah:
("Answer: There are several matters in this question that require clarification:
1- The evidences provided, whether from the Book or the Sunnah, must be followed according to their nature. There is no difference between the evidences revealed in Makkah and those revealed in Madinah.
2- The required evidences are those specific to the issue at hand, not evidences for something else:
A- For example, if I want to know how to perform Wudu (ablution), I look for the evidences of Wudu wherever they are, whether revealed in Makkah or Madinah, and the Shari'ah ruling is deduced from them according to the established principles (Usul). But I do not look for the evidences of Fasting to derive from them the ruling of Wudu and its method!
B- For example, if I want to know the rulings of Hajj, I likewise look for the evidences of Hajj wherever they are, whether revealed in Makkah or Madinah, and the Shari'ah ruling is deduced from them according to the established principles. But I do not look for the evidences of Prayer to derive from them the ruling of Hajj and its method!
C- For example, if I want to know the rulings of Jihad: whether it is a personal obligation (fard ayn) or a collective obligation (fard kifayah), in defense or initiation, and what rulings follow Jihad regarding conquest and the spreading of Islam, conquest by force or by treaty... I look for the evidences of Jihad wherever they are, whether revealed in Makkah or Madinah, and the Shari'ah ruling is deduced from them according to the established principles. But I do not look for the evidences of Zakah to derive from them the ruling of Jihad and its details!
D- And so it is for every issue; its evidences are sought wherever they were revealed, in Makkah or Madinah, and the Shari'ah ruling for that issue is taken from those evidences according to the established principles.
3- Now we come to the issue of establishing the Islamic State. We look for its evidences, whether revealed in Makkah or Madinah, and we deduce the Shari'ah ruling from them according to the established principles.
We do not find any evidences for establishing the Islamic State except those which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ demonstrated in his Seerah in Makkah.
He called to Islam secretly, creating a believing, patient block... then he proclaimed it openly among the people in Makkah and during the seasons... then he sought the Nusrah (support) of the people of power and protection. Allah (swt) honored him with the Ansar, so he migrated to them and established the State.
These are the evidences for establishing the State, and no other evidences exist. The Messenger ﷺ explained them to us in his Seerah with a complete clarification, and we must adhere to them. The subject is not about a Makkan stage before the obligation of Jihad and a Madinan stage after the obligation of Jihad; rather, it is about seeking the evidences for establishing the State, and these are only found in Makkah until the Messenger of Allah ﷺ migrated to Madinah and established the State.
This is one thing, and Jihad is another thing. As we have said, the evidences for establishing the State are taken from their specific sources, and the evidences for Jihad are taken from their specific sources. One is not the other, and one does not depend on the other. Therefore, Jihad is not suspended by the absence of the Khilafah State...
Similarly, the work to establish the Khilafah is not suspended because the rulers have suspended Jihad...
Accordingly, Jihad is continuous, and the work for the Khilafah is continuous until it is established. Neither of them depends on the other. They are two separate issues; for each issue, its Shari'ah evidences are sought, and the specific Shari'ah ruling for that issue is deduced from them according to the established principles..."). End quote.
I hope this is sufficient to convince the person who debated you, so that he may be guided to the rightest course, Allah willing.
Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
18 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1440 AH Corresponding to 26/11/2018 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's (may Allah protect him) Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Ameer's (may Allah protect him) Google Plus page
Link to the answer from the Ameer's (may Allah protect him) Website