Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to Questions from Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fikri"
Answer to a Question
The Term "Treason" (Khiyanah) and Its Implication
To: Ragheb Abu Shama
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu, this is for our Ameer, may Allah protect and preserve him...
Our virtuous Sheikh and Ameer, Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu. May Allah protect and preserve you and grant victory through your hands. We have learned, and we have taught those whom Allah has enlightened, to define terms, understand their meanings, and regulate them. My point here is regarding "treason" (khiyanah) and describing the existing regimes in Muslim lands as treasonous regimes.
As you know, virtuous Sheikh, "treason" requires that the one described as such must have previously been upright and then betrayed, or was carrying a trust (amanah) and then betrayed it, or was bound by a covenant and then broke it. However, these regimes were never carrying a trust, nor were they established upon a covenant with the Ummah or with Allah. They were never carrying or preserving a trust which they then broke. These are regimes manufactured by a foreign, Western hand; they have no connection to us, our Deen, or our causes, except the connection of conspiracy, agency (’amalah), and implementing the orders of their creators.
Thus, saying they are "treasonous" implies they were once upon something (good), yet they were never upon anything. What your son and student sees is that we should not describe these regimes as treasonous, but rather as agents (’amalah) from start to finish, fundamentally and radically, from their inception and throughout their continuation...
May Allah bless you, our Sheikh.
Your son and student, an arrow in your quiver, Ragheb Abu Shama (Saifuddin Abed) – Palestine.
Wassalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
Answer:
Waalaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,
Firstly, I highly appreciate your interest in the language, but I would like to draw your attention to two matters:
First: The verb (fi'l) is what is linked to time. You say jaa’a (he came), yaji’u (he comes), and ihdar (be present/attend). All of these relate to time—past, present, or future (imperative). Based on this, you say khana (he betrayed), yakhunu (he betrays), and khun (betray!). All of these indicate betrayal in a past, present, or future time context.
Second: The verbal noun (masdar) is the word that indicates the event/action itself, independent of time, while including the letters of its verb either literally—such as ’alima ’ilman—or effectively—such as qatala qitalan—or by substituting what was deleted—such as wa’ada ’idatan and sallama tasliman...
Thus, the term "treason" (khiyanah) indicates betrayal as an event, but it does not indicate time—i.e., when the betrayal occurred or since when. It could be today, or it could have been for years. If you see an affair today being managed by other than the rules of Sharia, you say "this is treason" (khiyanah). It is not necessary that this affair, prior to the day you saw it, was managed without treason. It might have been a trust (amanah) before that day, as mentioned in your letter, or it might have been treason previously as well. Therefore, your statement that treason means it was previously a trust and then later became treason—meaning it is linked to time—is inaccurate. That would require a context (qarinah) to specify when the treason began.
Furthermore, there seems to be a confusion! You say at the end of the question that we should not say "treason" because it implies it was a trust in a previous time, but at the same time, you say this traitor must be described as being an "agent" (’amalah). How so? If you believe that khiyanah must have been "non-treason" before, then the same applies to the word ’amalah (agency/client-ship), because both khiyanah and ’amalah are verbal nouns (masdar), and what applies to one applies to the other in terms of occurrence and time.
In conclusion, the masdar relates to the occurrence of the action and not to time, whereas the verb relates to time.
In any case, it is clear from your letter that you are interested in the language and its nuances. Whoever is like that is, by Allah’s leave, on the path to the depths of philology (fiqh al-lughah). I ask Allah to increase you in jurisprudence, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
As for how you signed your letter ("your son and student..."), what a fine son and student you are. May Allah protect you from all harm and shield you from all evil.
Wassalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
23 Dhu al-Qi'dah 1442 AH 04/07/2021 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Ameer’s Website