Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah, Amir of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fiqhi"
To: Mohamed Ahmadi
Question:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Peace be upon you, our Amir, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. I ask the Almighty to guide your steps and grant victory to Islam at your hands.
To proceed, my dear brother, I submit to you some questions, hoping that Allah will illuminate your path.
As for the first question:
It was stated in the book The Funds in the Khilafah State, edition (1425 AH - 2004 CE), page 132, last paragraph in the chapter "The Wealth of the Apostates," as follows: "Just as Abu Bakr and the Sahabah fought the apostates and did not accept anything from them except a total return to Islam..." However, it was stated on page 189, last paragraph in the chapter "The Ruling on the One Who Withholds Zakat," as follows: "If a group refuses to pay Zakat to the State, refuses to obey it regarding the obligation of paying Zakat to it, and they resist in a place and fortify themselves therein, the State fights them as bughat (rebels), just as Abu Bakr and the Sahabah with him fought those who withheld the Zakat."
Are these two incidents separate? If the incident was one, how can we categorize it once as "fighting apostates" and another as "fighting bughat"? The reality is that a single incident cannot have multiple contradictory rulings.
The second question:
It is related to the reality of funds seized through dominance and the power of authority mentioned on page 119. Given the permissibility of the State granting its funds to members of the subjects (Iqta'), are the relatives of rulers and state officials absolutely deprived of this granting due to this kinship, even if they are among those in need? If granting is permissible for them, what is the dividing line between what is permissible and what is not?
The third question:
There is a difference in dealing with the mandatory paper money (al-waraq al-ilzami) currently in circulation with countries with whom we have a treaty of peace and good neighborliness—since these mandatory papers are still valid and have purchasing power—and the mandatory paper money circulated among the people in the place that will be the point of support (nuqtat al-irtikaz) for the Khilafah State, as the validity of these mandatory papers would have ended and no longer possess purchasing power. The question is: How will the State deal with these currencies? Will it replace what is in the people's hands with the new currency based on gold and silver? If so, does this not mean enabling the people to obtain gold and silver in exchange for papers that have no value and will be destroyed?
Your brother, Mohamed Ahmadi
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
First: Answer to the first question:
1- After the death of the Prophet ﷺ, tribes of the Arabs apostatized from Islam. These were fought by the Muslims because they apostatized from Islam, and their fighting is what is referred to as the "fighting of the apostates"... However, there were some tribes that did not declare their apostasy from Islam but rather refused to give Zakat to Abu Bakr in his capacity as the Khalifah, misinterpreting some Shariah texts. There was a well-known disagreement among the Sahabah regarding fighting them. Abu Bakr (ra) insisted on fighting them because they refused to pay Zakat to the State, while some Sahabah, including Umar (ra), initially refused to fight them because, in their view, they were Muslims. However, after discussion with Abu Bakr (ra), they were convinced of his opinion regarding the necessity of fighting them. The fighting of these people is called by some "the fighting of those who withhold Zakat" to distinguish them from the apostates. Abu Bakr fought them according to what we prefer in the book The Funds in the Khilafah State as bughat (rebels) who rose against the State without leaving Islam. That is, we preferred that they were not apostates but rather rebels. Ibn Kathir mentioned a part of this incident in his book Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah as follows:
[Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (6/342): "A chapter on the الصديق (As-Siddiq) standing up to fight the people of apostasy and those who withheld Zakat. It was previously mentioned that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died, many tribes of the Bedouins apostatized, and hypocrisy appeared in Medina. The Banu Hanifa and a great many people in Al-Yamamah joined Musaylimah the Liar, and Banu Asad, Tayy, and many people joined Tulayhah al-Asadi, who also claimed prophethood as Musaylimah the Liar had... Delegations of the Arabs began coming to Medina. They acknowledged the prayer but refused to pay Zakat. Some of them refused to pay it to As-Siddiq, and it was mentioned that some of them argued using the words of the Almighty: (Take from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [Allah's blessings] upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them). They said: 'We will not pay our Zakat except to the one whose prayer is a reassurance for us.' Some of them recited: 'We obeyed the Messenger of Allah when he was among us, so how strange is the rule of Abu Bakr...' The Sahabah spoke with As-Siddiq about leaving them as they were in withholding the Zakat and reconciling with them until faith became firm in their hearts, after which they would pay Zakat. As-Siddiq refused this and rejected it. The group [of Hadith narrators] except for Ibn Majah narrated from Abu Hurayrah that Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Abu Bakr: 'On what basis do you fight the people? The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they say it, they have protected their blood and wealth from me except by its right.' Abu Bakr said: 'By Allah, if they withheld a female kid (animal)'—and in another narration: 'a rope used for tying a camel'—'that they used to pay to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, I would fight them for withholding it. Zakat is the right of the wealth. By Allah, I will fight whoever differentiates between prayer and Zakat.' Umar said: 'It was nothing but that I saw Allah had opened Abu Bakr's chest for fighting, so I knew it was the truth...'"] End quote.
2- Thus, the first instance we discuss in the book The Funds in the Khilafah State in the section "The Wealth of the Apostates" concerns the apostates whom Abu Bakr (ra) fought because they left Islam. It states in that section:
["If a group apostatizes, resists in a country, and appoints a ruler for themselves and specific laws, they become Dar al-Harb. The sanctity of their blood and wealth is removed, and they must be fought. They become like original disbelievers; in fact, they are more severe and more deserving of being fought. This is because original disbelievers may be accepted through Islam, a peace treaty, or Jizyah. As for the apostates, nothing is accepted from them except Islam. Peace treaties and Jizyah are not accepted from them—either Islam or death. Just as Abu Bakr and the Sahabah fought the apostates and did not accept anything from them except a total return to Islam or death. The Prophet ﷺ said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' Narrated by al-Bukhari and an-Nasa'i."]
These people were fought by Abu Bakr and the Sahabah (ra) as disbelievers who apostatized from Islam, and they accepted nothing from them except returning to Islam or being killed.
3- As for the other instance in the book The Funds in the Khilafah State in the chapter "The Ruling on the One Who Withholds Zakat," it says: ["If he refuses to pay it while believing in its obligation, it is taken from him by force. If a group refuses to pay Zakat to the State, refuses to obey it regarding the obligation of paying Zakat to it, and they resist in a place and fortify themselves therein, the State fights them as bughat (rebels), just as Abu Bakr and the Sahabah with him fought those who withheld the Zakat."] The discussion here is about those who withheld Zakat but did not apostatize from Islam. Abu Bakr's fight against them was not a war of apostasy (riddah) but a fight against rebellion (baghy) and rising against the State. These are different from the apostates mentioned in the previous point.
4- Incidentally, we detailed the second instance you asked about in the chapter "The Ruling on the One Who Withholds Zakat" in a way that puts things in perspective and clarifies the difference between the two cases mentioned above. I quote for you the full text from The Funds in the Khilafah State:
["The Ruling on the One Who Withholds Zakat
If a Muslim owns a nisab (minimum amount) of wealth upon which Zakat is due, it is obligatory for him to pay what is due. If he refuses to pay it, he incurs a great sin, as mentioned in the Hadiths regarding the subject of Sadaqah funds, which sternly denounce those who do not pay the Zakat on their wealth.
The reality of whoever refuses to pay Zakat is examined. If he refuses to pay it due to ignorance of its obligation, because someone like him would normally be ignorant of it, he is informed of its obligation; he is not considered a disbeliever nor is he disciplined because he is excused, and it is taken from him.
If he refuses to pay it while denying its obligation, then he is an apostate. He is treated as an apostate: he is asked to repent three times. If he repents and turns back, it is taken from him and he is left alone; otherwise, he is killed. This is because the obligation of Zakat is known from the religion by necessity (ma'lum min ad-din bid-darurah). The evidences for the obligation of Zakat are clear in the Book, the Sunnah, and the Consensus (Ijma'), and are hardly hidden from any of the Muslims.
If he refuses to pay it while believing in its obligation, it is taken from him by force. If a group refuses to pay Zakat to the State, refuses to obey it regarding the obligation of paying Zakat to it, and they resist in a place and fortify themselves therein, the State fights them as bughat (rebels), just as Abu Bakr and the Sahabah with him fought those who withheld the Zakat."] End quote.
The withholdes of Zakat whom Abu Bakr fought according to this text were not those who refused Zakat by denying its obligation, otherwise they would have been apostates—and there were indeed some among the apostates at that time who denied Zakat. However, the "withholders of Zakat" were those who believed in its obligation but did not accept paying it to Abu Bakr, i.e., to the State. Thus, they rebelled against the State and were bughat.
I hope the matter is clear to you now.
Second: Answer to the second question:
You are asking about the following passage from the book The Funds in the Khilafah State:
["Funds Seized Through Dominance and the Power of Authority
These are the funds seized by the rulers, governors, and officials, or their relatives and state employees, from the state's funds or lands, or from the people's funds or lands, through coercion, dominance, and conquest, by the power of authority and position. Every fund seized and every land seized from the state's funds and lands, or from the people's funds and lands, by any of these means is considered prohibited gain (kasb haram) and is not owned. This is because it was gained through an illegitimate way, and every seizure by any of these means is considered injustice (dhulm). Injustice is prohibited and will be darkness on the Day of Resurrection. It is also considered ghulul (misappropriation), and ghulul leads to the Fire. On the authority of the Prophet ﷺ:
مَنْ أَخَذَ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ شَيْئاً بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ، خُسِفَ بِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِلَى سَبْعِ أَرَضِينَ
'Whoever takes anything from the land without right, he will be swallowed up by it on the Day of Resurrection down to the seven earths.' (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
In another narration:
مَنْ أَخَذَ شِبْراً مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ظُلْماً، فَإِنَّهُ يُطَوَّقُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مِنْ سَبْعِ أَرَضِينَ
'Whoever takes a handspan of land unjustly, he will have it tied around his neck like a collar from seven earths on the Day of Resurrection.' (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
On the authority of Aisha that the Prophet ﷺ said:
مَنْ ظَلَمَ شِبْراً مِنَ الأَرْضٍ، طَوَّقَهُ اللهُ مِنْ سَبْعِ أَرَضِينَ
'Whoever acts unjustly [regarding] a handspan of land, Allah will tie it around his neck from seven earths.' (Agreed upon)
The funds and lands that are seized, if they were from the property of the people, and their owners are known, must be returned to them. If they are not known, they must be placed in the Bayt al-Mal (State Treasury). If they were state property, they must definitely be returned to the Bayt al-Mal, just as Umar bin Abdul Aziz did when he took over the Khilafah. He returned all the funds and lands that the Umayyads had seized by the power of their authority from the people's property or the state's property to the Bayt al-Mal of the Muslims, except for those whose owners he knew, to whom he returned them.
He stripped the Umayyads of their estates, their allocations, and everything they had seized, because he considered that they had owned them through the power of the Umayyad authority and through illegitimate means that do not allow for ownership. He began with himself, giving up all his wealth, properties, all his mounts, perfumes, and belongings, then sold them for twenty-three thousand dinars and placed them in the Bayt al-Mal."] End quote.
It is clear from this text that the discussion is about funds being seized through coercion, dominance, and conquest, by the power of authority and position. This means that whoever obtains these funds only obtains them because they are a person of power and authority or because they are a relative of a person of power and authority. That is, they are the people who obtain the wealth of the people and the state because of the existence of an authority that enables them to seize these funds.
As for the relatives of the rulers, if they are in need and were given money to meet their needs just as other needy subjects are given, and their kinship to the people in power was not an aid or interference in giving them money without right—I say if the matter is like this—then this giving is permissible just as it is for other needy individuals among the subjects, without these relatives being preferred over others because of their kinship...
If cases are found where the matter is suspicious, such that it does not clearly appear whether they acquired funds from the state due to their kinship with the rulers and officials or because they deserve it according to Shariah, if that is suspected, their case is raised to the Court of Unjust Acts (Mahkamat al-Mazhalim) to rule on them after investigating the reality of the situation. The decision of the Court of Unjust Acts is binding on the rulers if it rules on the necessity of recovering what was granted or given to them because it was a matter of seizure through dominance and the power of authority.
Third: Answer to the third question:
Regarding how to deal with mandatory paper money upon the establishment of the Khilafah, we are currently studying an executive regulation for dealing with the articles of the constitution, including Article 166, which states: [(Article 166 - The State issues its own currency, which shall be independent, and it is not permitted to be linked to any foreign currency)], and Article 167, which states: [The currency of the State is gold and silver, whether minted or not, and it is not permitted to have any other currency. The State may issue something else as a substitute for gold and silver, on the condition that it has an equivalent amount of gold and silver in the State's treasury. Thus, the State may issue copper, bronze, paper, or other materials and mint it in its name as its currency if it has a fully equivalent cover of gold and silver.]
Accordingly, we will announce it at the appropriate time after the completion of the executive regulation from all its aspects, Allah willing.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
07 Muharram al-Haram 1445 AH Corresponding to 25/07/2023 CE