Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Q&A: The tax due on uncultivated land

It is stated in the book Funds in the Khilafah State on page 79 (Arabic ed.), starting from the seventh line from the bottom of the page to the third line from the bottom, the following: "If the allocated land was uncultivated from the beginning of time, or it was cultivated and tilled then became neglected and uncultivated before Kharaj was imposed upon it, and the state had obtained the land in a legal manner and allotted it to a citizen, then its rule is like the rule of reviving uncultivated Kharaji land, it belongs to whoever revives it and secludes it, it's neck and its benefit if he is a Muslim and 'Ushr or half of the 'Ushr is due on him for it."
And the question is: Is it not the correct word 'Ushri instead of Kharaji that is underlined?

Answer:
1. It seems that the confusion arose because you thought that the revival of dead (barren) Kharaji land that had not been subject to Kharaj became 'Ushri. However the matter is not so, since it becomes 'Ushri for the Muslim, but it remains Kharaji to the Kafir.
However, the revival of dead (barren) land that has had Kharaj imposed on it does not take away its attribute of Kharaji, whether the 'reviver' (cultivator) be Muslim or Kafir.
The book The Economic System on p. 133-4 Arabic ed. (corresponding to p.137-8 English ed.) states the following:
"Whoever cultivates a dead land of the 'Ushri land, he owned its neck and its benefit, whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim. For such land, the Muslim landlord is obliged to pay the Zakat ('Ushr) of the plants and fruits, which are entitled for Zakat once the amount of the harvest reached the Nisab. As for the non-Muslim landlord of such land, he pays the Kharaj, not the 'ushr. This is because he is not one of those who are subject to pay Zakat and because the land cannot be left devoid of a payment, either Kharaj or 'Ushr.
Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where no Kharaj has been put over it before the he owns its neck and its benefit if he is Muslim. If he is non-Muslim he owns its benefit only. The Muslim landlord of such land is obliged to pay the 'Ushr with no Kharaj on him. While the non-Muslim landlord has to pay the Kharaj, similar to that put on its kuffar inhabitants at the time of its conquest.
Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where Kharaj has been levied before it became dead, he owns its benefit only without owning its neck, whether the landlord is Muslim or non-Muslim. Such a landlord is obliged to pay the Kharaj because it is a conquered land. Therefore, the Kharaj remains on it at all times, whether owned by a Muslim or non-Muslim."
In The Introduction to the Draft Constitution in the explanation of Article 133 states the following:
"And whoever revives dead (barren) land in the Kharaij land that has not had Kharaj imposed on it, it becomes 'Ushri land (and has Zakat) if the reviver is Muslim, and the land is Kharaji (and Kharaj is imposed) if a Dhimmi revives it." End
The book Funds in the Islamic State on p. 42 Arabic ed. (p. 44-5 English edition) at the statement about 'Ushri lands states the following:
"Every barren (dead) land that a Muslim has revived. He said:
�?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???�? ????? ??????? ????: �?? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???�.
'Whosoever revives a land that belongs to nobody then he is more deserving of it'. Bukhari reported the same Hadith with the words: 'Whosoever inhabits a land that belongs to nobody, he is more deserving of it'.
And this 'Ushri land remains 'Ushri, and does not change in to Kharaji except if a Kafir purchases 'Ushri land from a Muslim. Then he must pay Kharaj, and he does not pay the 'Ushr, because the 'Ushr is Zakat, and the Kafir is not from the people of Zakat, because it is a charity and purity for the Muslim, and the land must not be devoid of a function, either 'Ushr or Kharaj."
Accordingly, pertaining to your question "Is it not the correct word 'Ushri instead of Kharaji that is underlined?", rather it is correct that it should remain "Kharaji" because the issue is about allotting in the Kharaji lands if the land was barren and without previously imposed Kharaj.
And it is mentioned in the paragraph that you asked about in this chapter, and a few lines before it is the following: "But if the allotment was in Kharaji land � which is all the lands conquered by force such as Iraq and ash-Sham and Egypt � it is viewed...), and then begins with the details, so the subject is pertaining to the allotting in the Kharaji lands.
This is with the knowledge that reviving barren land in the Kharaji land and in the 'Ushri land makes the land 'Ushri if the reviver was a Muslim. And if the reviver is a Kafir then the Kharaji land remains Kharaji and the 'Ushri land remains 'Ushri, but he pays Kharaj in both cases because 'Ushr is Zakat and it is not taken from the Kafir, and the land does not lose its function, so Kharaj is taken for it from the Kafir.
21 Safar 1434 AH
01/03/2013 CE

Q&A: Ahkam Related to Buying and Selling

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
We know that it's not permissible to buy gold for silver or any other different types except hand to hand, and it's not permissible to buy it with debt. Moreover, we buy some times salt or bread with debt, so is this forbidden or not? Please clarify and may Allah bless you.
Your brother Abu Ali from Palestine

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
1. Prophet Muhammad ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
�????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???�
"Gold for gold, and silver for silver, and wheat for wheat, and barley for barley, and dates for dates, and salt for salt, equal for equal, equal in weight, and hand to hand (on the spot), If these types differed then sell as you desire as long as it is hand to hand (on the spot)." Narrated by Ubada Ibn us-Samit (ra) on the authority of Bukhari and Muslim.
The text of the Hadith is clear when there is a difference in these usurious types, that selling is however you want, which means that buying some thing for its similarity is not a condition but selling hand to hand is a condition. The word "types" was mentioned general for all the usurious types, all of the six, and nothing is excluded except with another text. Because there is no other text, the ruling is the permissibility of buying wheat for barley, or wheat for gold, or barley for silver, or dates for salt, or dates for gold, or salt for silver, etc... Even if the exchange values and the prices differ, it should be hand to hand and not debt. What applies to gold and silver applies also to banknotes because of the common (cash) reason, which means using it for cost and wages.
2. An exception from (hand to hand selling of the usurious types) was mentioned in case of giving security when buying the four types "wheat, barley, salt, and dates" in cash.
???? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????????: ???????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????
On the authority of Muslim, narrated by A'isha (ra) that: "The Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? bought some foodstuff from a Jew on credit and gave his iron armor to him as a security."
This Hadith means that the messenger ??? ???? ???? ???? bought food in debt but with giving security. Their food, at that time, was from the usurious types, as in the Hadith:
?????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????
"Foodstuff for foodstuff equal for equal, and our food on that day was barley." Narrated by Mu'amar Ibn Abdullah on the authority of Ahmad and Muslim.
For that it is permissible that the four usurious types are bought by debt, if some thing is given as a security to the seller until the buyer gets its price.
3. If the borrower and debtor trust each other, then there is no need for anything to be kept as a security. The evidence for that is the saying of Allah ?????? ??????:
?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ????? ???????? ? ????????? ????? ??????????? ???????
"If you are on a journey and cannot find a writer, something can be left as a security. If you leave things on trust with one another the one who is trusted must deliver up his trust and have taqwa of Allah his Lord. Do not conceal testimony. If someone does conceal it, his heart commits a crime. Allah knows what you do."
(Al-Baqara, 2:283)
This noble Ayah shows that security in debt while traveling is gotten rid of, if the borrower and the debtor trust each other. This is applicable to the security when buying by debt one of the four usurious types "wheat, barley, salt, and dates", as Allah ?????? ?????? says:
?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????
"If you leave things on trust with one another the one who is trusted must deliver up his trust."
(Al-Baqara, 2:283)
And it is clear that security in this case can be removed.
4. Then it's permissible to buy the four usurious types, ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? "wheat, barley, salt, and dates", cash by debt with security until the debt is paid, or without security if they trust each other. Because this needs proof and authentication, and the borrower and debtor should know each other well and trust each other; and this is not attained always, so for the Muslim not to approach Haram, it is better for him not to buy these usurious types by debt unless he is sure and certain that they trust each other. If each of the seller and the buyer is satisfied with that, then buying these types by debt is permissible, which means that salt that you have asked for buying it by debt is permissible, if the noble Ayah is achieved:
?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????
"If you leave things on trust with one another"
(Al-Baqara, 2:283)
5. For the knowledge, it was mentioned in the explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari for Ibn Battal in the chapter of buying food for a predetermined time "scholars agree that it's permissible to buy food with known price to a predetermined time."
Also, it was mentioned in the book of Fiqh for the four schools written by al-Jaziri about buying the usurious types:"if one of the exchanged is cash and the other is food, it is fine to postpone it."
It was mentioned in "al-Mughni" written by Ibn al-Qayyem, while he is talking about the prohibition of selling the four types with each other by debt... He said: "in contrary to selling for dirhams or any other weighted type for a later time, then it has to be done like that."
Your brother Ata' bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
22 Shawwal 1434 AH
29 August 2013 CE

Q&A: Has the Global Financial Crisis come to an End?

On Friday 09/06/2013 the G-20 Economic Conference was concluded in St. Petersburg with the adoption of the final statement. The statement said, as quoted by Reuters News Agency on 09/06/2013, "that the global economy is getting better..." Reuters also quoted Andre Bockarev, Director of the Department of Finances in the Russian Ministry of Finance, who participated in the drafting of the final statement of the G-20: "The most difficult and longest discussion was the assessment of the global economy". Recently data appeared indicating this improvement, and the European Union spread that its economy began to grow albeit slightly. The United States said that its economy grew by 1% in 2013, and China published that its economy grew this year until the month of July 2013 by more than 7%.
Is the global economy really improving and has the economic crisis eased, during the past six years since its outbreak in America in 2007? In case the economy has not improved, how then were these data and figures announced? Please explain and Jazakallahu Khairan!

Answer:
We will review the economic reality of the economically most influential countries in the world, which are the United States, the European Union and China, since the economy of these three countries represent more than 50% of the global economy, and because of the economic crisis being closely linked to the capitalist system adopted by the United States and the European Union. Therefore they carry the driving impact on the crisis, while China's role during the crisis was to overcome it, thus playing a reactionary role rather than a progressive one, as we will demonstrate later. For your information, the U.S. economy alone approaches the economies of China, Japan and Germany combined, the three largest economic powers in the world that come after the U.S. economy respectively. The total size of the U.S. economy in the year 2012 amounted to $15.7 trillion, which represents 22% of the global economy. The Chinese economy reached $8.2 trillion, while the Japanese and the German economy have reached the $5.9 trillion and $3.4 trillion respectively according to the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Because of the large size of the U.S. economy, America's economic crisis that resulted from the collapse of the mortgage market in America spread to the world. Accordingly we will focus the research on the economy of these three most influential countries in the global economy, and because the most prominent factors that give an indication of whether or not there exists an improvement are: the unemployment rate, domestic debt, department services such as municipalities and the social expenditures... then government debt... These three show the movement on the labor market, and the movement on the currency trading market, as well as the movement on the markets of governmental and private projects. Therefore we will focus our research on them, and then discern the truth about the alleged improvement of the global economy.
First: The United States of America:
1. Unemployment rate: The Central Bank has deliberately since late 2008 reduced interest rates on loans to near zero. It has doubled its balance sheet three times for up to about $3 trillion since then through the bond-buying program. In its last meeting the Central Bank has settled it at a monthly rate of $85 billion, all in order to reduce borrowing costs on the long-term, and then to facilitate the taking of loans for owners of business and projects to stimulate the labor market. However the unemployment rate continued to be high last month at 7.9 %, which is not much different from 5 years ago, when it reached 8.9 %. Although the United States approved the stimulus bill, i.e. pumping money into companies through buying shares, which began to be applied in 2009, the economy has not recovered! It did not lower the unemployment rate much, indicating that a deep crisis is still going on, and the economy has not improved.
2. Debt of the service sector such as municipalities: Sky News Arabia website reported on 08/11/2013 that "the burden of debt in the cities and municipalities of the United States and the inability to repay led to the bankruptcy of 41 cities within two years", which means that many American cities did not succeed in overcoming the effects of the global financial crisis until today. The ghost of bankruptcy returned to loom over American cities, after the State of Detroit requested to officially announce its bankruptcy last July, due to its inability to pay its debts amounting to almost $18 billion. Bankruptcy is a last resort for municipalities and cities for protection from creditors, in other words, to escape from reality and resort to the easiest solution. According to the statistics of the American Bankruptcy Institute, within the period between 2007 and 2011, America witnesses more than 40 cases of bankruptcy of cities and municipalities, with a rate of 8 cases per year. This news report shows that city bankruptcies during the last two years (between 2011 and 2013) were more than at the height of the crisis, as well as immediately before and after it. This raises doubts concerning the statement that the U.S. economy has improved.
3. Governmental debt: U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Jacob "Jack" Lew, on 08/26/2013 in his letter which he sent to Congress warned that "extraordinary measures that have been implemented last May to avoid the government's inability to pay its debts will expire in mid-October" and urged Congress to extend the right of the government to borrow." (Al-Quds website on 08/27/2013). The U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Jacob "Jack" Lew, in his letter to the Congress pointed out that "the U.S. government will lose the resources required to meet its liabilities by 15th October of this year, if the ceiling of total debt of state is not raised, which now permits to the fullest extent a total debt of $ 16.7 trillion." He went on to warn, "Malfunction may occur on the financial markets and the economy will collapse in case the ceiling of the state debt is kept at the current level." He added, "The task of Congress is to protect the trust in the United States, because there is no other institution that possesses the legitimacy of raising the ceiling of the state debt." (Russia Today website on 08/28/2013). I.e. the debt of the United States has reached the maximum limit of $16.7 trillion, however they are demanding the lifting of the debt ceiling to meet their obligations!
This is a picture of America's situation. The debt is too high and they have to resort to a lifting of the debt ceiling to pay their expenses, address the deficit and to prevent economic collapse. This picture does not indicate that the state of the U.S. economy has improved, nor that they have emerged from the crisis.
Secondly: The European Union:
1. Unemployment Rate: Christine Lagarde, the Director of the International Monetary Fund stated that "the unemployment rate in Spain and Greece is 27%", (Euronews web site 26/4/2013). She also stated on 3/5/2013 that: "Unemployment in the 17-nation euro area was 12 percent in February and the January figure was revised up to the same level from 11.9 percent estimated earlier, the European Union's statistics office in Luxembourg said today...The European Commission predicts unemployment rates of 12.2 percent this year and 12.1 percent in 2014".
Olli Rehn, Commission Vice-President for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro said, "In view of the protracted recession, we must do whatever it takes to overcome the unemployment crisis in Europe".
Raymond Torres, Director of the International Institute for Labour Studies at the International Labour Organization said, "If nothing is done, there is a risk of a prolonged labour market recession in Europe with a lot of people moving into long-term unemployment or even dropping out of the labour market, which means that they no longer participate."
He added: "It is also important to adopt and to move to a growth strategy, especially in the eurozone," and he said the ILO favours better investment policies: "Without new credit to small enterprises (businesses) it is unthinkable to imagine a job recovery in Europe." [Euronews 3/6/2013]
Euronews also added that "the Organization pointed out that unemployment rate has increased in nearly two-thirds of European countries since 2010. Over 30 million jobs are still needed to return employment rate to 56%, as it was in the pre-crisis level".
2. Social Expenditures: Euronews webpage published on 30/8/2013: "The Nordic countries, which have been long famed for their generous welfare states, are counting the cost and finding they can no longer afford such entitlements for their citizens, according to Denmark's finance minister Bjarne Corydon. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently calculated what its members spend. France tops the list devoting 33 percent of its gross domestic product on welfare. It is followed by Denmark (30.8 percent), Belgium (30.7 percent), Finland (30.5 percent) and Sweden (28.6 percent)."
All these rates are too low to fulfill all the needs of these countries' residents... Except for Germany, whose social expenditures are acceptable to an extent... if these are the rates within the strongest spending countries, what would then be the situation of the other countries?!
3. Debt: Euronews webpage published on 22/7/2013 that, "The eurozone continues to sink deeper into debt in the first three months of this year irrespective of the measures taken to slow down the pace of fiscal tightening, as Greece, Italy and Portugal posted the worst while those with the lowest debt to GDP ratios are Luxembourg and Estonia." It also mentioned that, "The single currency bloc is trapped in recession, with a record high jobless rate and fragile prospects for economic recovery.
To help economic growth, European governments have decided to slow down the pace of fiscal tightening by quickly rising borrowing costs as investors worried that huge debts diminished their prospects of getting their money back."
It is worth mentioning that many of the EU countries borrowed money after they joined the EU, to the extent that borrowing exceeded the size of their economies. When the crisis reached Europe, many countries of the European Union were in a position which does not allow them to pay the debts they had prior to the crisis. Keeping in mind that Germany is the primary influencing State in the European economy, it has been able to impose austerity policies to reduce government expenditures and reduce the indebtedness of the nations, and it has worked on imposing this on the euro zone in the European Union, unlike America, which followed a policy of pumping money and increasing debt.
Thus, these statements and reports indicate that the economy in Europe still suffers from the effects of the crisis and was unable to get out, remaining in a state of recession, and therefore, it has not improved in a remarkable way.
Thirdly: China:
China's economy is a different matter, the Chinese economic analysts say that, "The increase in (economy) growth is largely dependent on the export and investment sectors, not on domestic consumption. And thus, the general public does not deeply feel the extent of the high level of their living conditions". Its internal market is still very weak. It is therefore not a measure and does not affect the economies of other countries. It is primarily dependant on exports to U.S. markets as well as mutual investment with the United States, whether it be through China buying shares of American companies with hundreds of billions of dollars or purchasing for the U.S. Treasury bonds in an excess of a trillion dollars, as well as the American companies investing within China, also making its dollar cash reserves more than $3 trillion. China is not a leading state in the Capitalist world, but it is its follower due to it following the Capitalist way and its economic ties being with America, and it hastens to work on the implementation of the decisions led by the global Capitalist economic institutions under American influence. It can not declare itself as a Capital state, thereupon working on the leadership of the capitalist economy, because it formally and traditionally declares itself as a communist socialist state, and works to maintain this image officially for fear of losing its independent existence, and out of fear that those who lead the state, and who embrace the Communist ideology, of losing their privileges. Thereby, the Communists and their party timidly act on applying that capitalist systems and maintaining their link to America's economy, the leader of capitalism.
For this reason, it is not expected that China abandons this policy, and hence take the lead in the capitalist world becoming the one affecting the world economy. Hence, when we address the financial crisis of capitalism that has affected the world, we focus on America primarily, and Europe secondly, because the world that is dominated by the capitalist system is economically affected by these two: firstly by America and secondly by Europe.
Fourthly: Economies of the other countries:
The economies of the other countries whose impact on controlling world economy is low:
-Japan's debt reached 245% of GDP according to IMF figures, who once again asked Japan to develop a medium-term credible budget plan in order to reduce this enormous debt, while not reducing the impact that more than 90% of it is owed to Japanese creditors.... "The Japanese government announced on 8/8/2013 its intention to cut about $85 billion of public expenditure within two years, i.e., the opposite of what is required by the Japanese stimulus policy ..."
- As for Russia, it applies the Capitalist systems internally, and works on imitating the West in its application and in the establishment of economic organizations with other countries without having the ability to being creative, it therefore worked on establishing economic organizations with its affiliate countries like the European Customs Union which was established with Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2010, in stimulation of the European Customs Union... Over all, the Russian economy follows the Capitalist system, led by the West and works on following its footsteps and implementing its decisions as well as imitating capitalist countries in creating economic organizations; Therefore Russia in this regard is not affecting the global economy, but is affected by the Western Capitalist economy more than the fact that it affects it effectively.
-As for the rest of the BRICS group (Brazil, India and South Africa), and the rest of the emerging nations (Mexico and Turkey)... they have no notable influence in the global economy. They directly follow the Western economy and are tied to the American and European financial markets. Some of them primarily depend on loans for the increase in growth like Turkey, which is not a real economy, and as such consumption increases with the people relying on borrowing, and likewise the state institutions and private institutions and companies. In some of them, like India, corruption is rampant and most of the funds are smuggled abroad. Thus the economies of these countries are unstable and not dependent on real economic resources. Brazil and South Africa have economic influence in their regions, South America and Africa, and not on the motion of the global economy.
In general one does not focus on these economies when studying the creation or removal of crises.
Fifthly: As for the numbers and data that are announced, they are sited as the economic institutions want in the states that issue this data..."
1. The growth in 2013 that the United States officially mentioned was in reality because the American government changed the way in which it measures the economy. It changed the way in which it measures growth by introducing intellectual property into the economy, such as music production and the property rights of producing medicines and drugs... and this change lead to a 370 billion dollar increase in the economy, which represents a change (increase) representing 2.5%. Despite this, the economy of the United States is struggling to grow at a time in which its citizens have cut their spending; therefore, the reports that the recession has ended are due to the way in which statistics are published, and are artificial and not real.
2. As for the data issued by European officials, they too are not based on sustainable growth. The data that was announced is merely a preliminary estimate, and does not include all of Europe. They did not include countries that are suffering economically like Ireland and Greece. And the data issued was only an estimate compiled by the European data Agency, Eurostat, which depends on the data provided by the national statistics offices, which collects data differently, and depends greatly on surveys for its preliminary estimates of growth. These estimates are usually revised many times. The German statistics office indicates that the revisions can take place even four years after the preliminary estimates because additional data can be taken into account. Therefore, given the statistical flaws, one cannot actually say that the situation in Europe has improved.
3. As for China, there have always been many questions and much suspicion around the data that is issued about its economy. China is a large country; with the largest area and largest population in the world. Collecting data about the performance of its economy is a very hefty undertaking...
What raises the doubts of observers is that China issued figures of annual gross domestic product (GDP) in the third week of January for the previous year, and it is extremely difficult for the Chinese government to organize an entire year's results within three weeks! This has given credibility to the idea that the Chinese data is in reality what it wants the world to know about its economy!
Sixthly: Conclusion:
The global financial crisis has not yet ended, and its repercussions are still present and are still being dealt with by pumping money as America does, or with austerity as Germany does in Europe. America pumps the amount of 85 billion dollars into the market, and gives this money to companies so that they will stay afloat, and Europe follows the policy of austerity. This is evidence that the crisis is still present and that the economy is not progressing normally without the intervention and help of the state, as if the state is the economy's ventilator. This is with the knowledge that the intervention of the state is at odds with the Capitalist system; as this system affirms ridding the market of the clutches of authority, so it does not allow the state to intervene in the market to rescue the companies and the rest of the financial institutions or to limit the movement of the market. It necessitates that there be absolute freedom, and that the market correct itself on its own, so according to the capitalist ideology intervention hinders advancement, and survival will be for the fittest, so the companies which are unable to work must fail so others can work, and only the companies able to compete remain in the market. This is how the economy advances and works freely according to the Capitalist theory which is contradicted by reality and refuted by the practices of the capitalist states. The causes of the crises and the sources of problems have not been dealt with and are inherent in the capitalist system. At every moment a setback may occur, like an ill man suffering from a chronic disease who is given reports that his health has improved due to some cause, and soon after other reports are given saying the opposite, so he is given analgesics and injections to keep him alive but he suffers from unending pains and aches...
Likewise the global economy has not improved and the crisis remains, and the problems still stand, and will stand as long as the capitalist system remains, resulting in poverty and deprivation for billions of people and the wasting of much wealth before it reaches the people; wealth that they would have benefited from had it been distributed among them. So unhappiness and misery pervades the lives of many people, and a small number of venture capitalists account for a majority of the wealth. And because of this the crisis remains as a volcano, erupting sometimes and then calm at other times, but the inside of the volcano rages. From here we can say that there is no real solution except for Islam, which views the economic problem as the proper distribution of wealth, and enabling every single individual to benefit from it and obtaining their share, and preventing the accumulation of wealth in the pockets of certain people. Islam does not look at society by overview, and does not decide that the individual's share is a given amount given the amount of wealth and resources, where in reality it all ends up the share of a very small class!
We ask Allah Almighty to return the rule of Islam, the Righteous Khilafah, that will spread happiness and contentment, and the sound economic life, not only for the Islamic Ummah, but will spread goodness to the four corners of the Earth, and Allah ?????? ?????? is mighty and wise.
03rd Dhul Qi'ddah 1434 AH
09/09/2013 CE

Q&A: The Hukm of the Haram money after Taubah (Repentance)

To the Scholar Ata Ibn Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah, may Allah Protect you. As-Salaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah:
What is the Hukm (Islamic ruling) concerning the Haram money after Taubah like the money that has come by means of interest, stealing, vulgar singing, or other than that?
Is their specification or is the Hukm singular?
And if the money was Haram and even if the one who possessed it had sought repentance (Taubah) there could be a person that wishes to make Taubah but fears the loss of his wealth... So is there in this an exception so that his Taubah is coveted like some of the Sheikhs have stated?
From Tamir Al-Hajj Muhammad
Answer:
Wa Alaikumu Assallam Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu,
Allah ?????? ?????? says:
??? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????
"O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance."
And He ?????? ?????? has said:
?????? ????????? ??????? ???????????? ????????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ?????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????? ????????
"Except for those who make Taubah (repentance) and correct and hold fast to Allah and make their Deen purely for Allah, then those who do this are with the believers and Allah will provide the believers with a great reward."
At-Tirmidhi extracted a Hadith narrated by Anas Bin Malik (ra) from the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ????:
????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ????????????? ??????????????
"Every son of Adam errs (sins) and the best of those who sin are those who repent."
And in order for the Taubah to be valid and for Allah ?????? ?????? to forgive the one who repents his sin, then it is obligatory for the one repenting to remove himself from the sinful act of disobedience, and regret disobeying Him ?????? ?????? in this act that he had done in the past and resolve a decisive firm determination to never return to the like of that act.
And if that act of disobedience was connected to the right of another person then it is a condition to return that unjust act to its people or receive exoneration from them. So if he has property (wealth) that he has taken from them by stealing or illegitimate usurpation then it is obligatory to return the property to its rightful owner and to rid of this unlawful gain according to the Shar'i manner. This is because acquiring funds (property, wealth) through Haram means carries severe consequences. Ahmad extracted a Hadith narrated by Abdullah Ibn Masoud (ra) that the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said: �...????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????... ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ????????� "And a servant does not acquire money from Haram except that it would be a provision for him in the fire."
At-Tirmidhi extracted from Ka'ab Bin Ujrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
??? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ????
"O Ka'ab no morsel (i.e. anything) that comes by way of Suht (illicit money) brings profit except that that the fire has more right to it."
So how does this person you ask about want to repent while he retains the Haram money in his possession?! This is not Taubah but rather this is a continuation of the bad. So I advise him to make Taubah and rid himself from the Haram gain in accordance to the Shar'a (Islamic Law). And to return the Haram money that he stole or usurped to its rightful owners, requests their pardon and seeks forgiveness from Allah firstly and lastly. Allah ?????? ?????? is Ar-Razzaaq (the One who provides all sustenance) and Possessor of the Insurmountable Power (Al-Quwwah Al-Mateen) and if He ?????? ?????? Wills to compensate him with wholesome and blessed wealth which He will honour him with in this life and the next. And Allah ?????? ?????? loves the Taubah of His slave if he is truthful and sincere. He will reward him with the fullest of reward.
I ask Allah ?????? ?????? to guide this man to the rightly guided course in this matter so that he makes seeks repentance sincerely and Allah ?????? ?????? is the most giving in His Forgiveness.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
26 Shaban 1434 AH
05 July 2013 CE

Q&A: The One Who Eats Ribaa (Usury) | Sheikh Ata� Abu Rashtah

Assalaamu Alaikum,
If you permit I would like to ask about the one who commits the act of Ribaa (usury) and if he will be in the fires of Hell forever? It relates to the Tafseer of Aayah 275 as found in the book At-Tayseer Fee Usool At-Tafseer. Thank you Brother.
From Adi Victoria from the Indonesian town of Samarinda.
Answer:
Wa Alaikumu Assalaam Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu,
There are two kinds of people who deal with Ribaa (usury):
First: The kind who believes that Ribaa is Haram and despite this still deals with Ribaa. So this is someone who commits a major sin. He receives a punishment in this life from the Khilafah state and if he is not punished with the Shari'ah punishment in this life then he will have the punishment of the Hereafter and so he will enter the fire but not forever as long as he did not make the Ribaa as halal. So this is the case where he believes that Ribaa is Haraam but still perpetrated that act of disobedience (Ma'siyah). And the one who is 'Aasiy (disobedient) and dies upon Islam then he will not abide in the fire forever due to the saying of the Messenger ??? ???? ???? ???? in a Hadeeth that is Muttafaq Alaihi (agreed upon) related by Anas Bin Maalik who said that the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
???????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????: ??? ?????? ?????? ?????
"The one who says: Laa Ilaahah Illallah will be taken out of the fire..."
So this means that he will not abide in it forever.
Second: The one who makes Ribaa Halaal i.e. he states that Ribaa is Halaal and then dies upon this. This kind is a Kaffir (disbeliever) because he has denied that which must be known from the Deen by necessity. Ribaa is Haram in the Quran Al-Kareem by Qat'iyah (definite) Ayat, Qat'iyah Ath-Thuboot (definite in transmission) and Qat'yah Ad-Dalaalah (definite in meaning). So whoever makes Ribaa Halal and dies upon that then he is a disbeliever and this kind will abide in the fire forever. So this is the case of the one who used to deal with Ribaa and deny that Ribaa was Haram. He therefore dies upon disbelief and will stay in the fire (Hell) forever.
The evidence for this is the speech of Allah ?????? ?????? in Ayah 275 of Surah Al-Baqarah:
????????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ???????????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????????
"Those who eat Ribaa (usury) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaitaan (Satan) leading Him to insanity. That is because they say: "Trading is only like Ribaa (usury)," whereas Allah has made trading Halaal and made Ribaa (usury) Haraam. So whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and stops eating Ribaa (usury) shall not be punished for the past; his case is for Allah (to judge); but whoever returns [to Ribaa (usury)], such are the dwellers of the Fire - they will abide therein forever."
So the last part of the Ayah came commenting upon those:
??????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????????
'They say: Trading is only like Ribaa'.
This means that they made Ribaa Halal like trade and they disbelieved in the speech of Allah of Allah ?????? ??????:
????????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????
'And Allah has made trading Halaal and made Ribaa Haraam'.
So those whom it reaches that Ribaa is Haram and not Halal and then they believe in this, make Taubah (repentance) and leaving their dealings with Ribaa and they find their capital sums sufficient then Allah ?????? ?????? will forgive them by His Favour and Forbearance that which occurred in the past. If however they insist upon Ribaa being Halal and continue to deal with it whilst denying and rejecting the speech of Allah ?????? ??????:
????????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????
"And Allah has made trading Halaal and made Ribaa Haraam",
and then die upon that, then they will be from those who the speech of Allah applies upon:
????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????????
"Such are the dwellers of the Fire - they will abide therein forever."
The following is the summary of what is understood from the Shariah texts:
1. That the one who perpetrates the act of dealing with Ribaa whilst believing that it is Haram, then this person is 'Aasiy (disobedient) and Faasiq (rebellious to Allah's Commands). If he dies upon Islam then he will not abide in the Hell fire forever but rather he will be punished in it for as long as Allah wishes and then is removed from the fire by His Permission, Subhaanahu.
2. The one who perpetrates the act of dealing with Ribaa whilst denying that it is Haram meaning that he has made it Halal for himself. If he then dies upon that then he would have died upon disbelief (Kufr) and spend eternity in the fire.
Allah has made us from amongst the truthful believers who make Haram that which Allah has made Haram and make Halal that which Allah has made Halal. Those who abide by the Ahkam Ash-Shariah as they have come, those whom Allah has honoured with Islam in this life and as a result he grants them victory over their enemies and honours them with Islam in the Hereafter by admitting them into His ?????? ??????'s Jannah and raising them amongst the Prophets, truthful, martyrs and righteous. And how good a company these will be to be with.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
28 Shaban 1434 AH
07 July 2013 CE

Q&A: Accepting gifts from those who earn money through haram means

The following is the translation of an Arabic Q&A from the website of the noble jurist, Islamic politician and mufassir Sheikh `Ata� Ibn Khalil Abu Rashta (Allah preserve him).
Question: 
Is it permissible to accept a gift from someone who earns his money through haram means (for example through gambling, riba (usury), insurance contracts, or selling wine)? Is it permissible for his family to accept his expenses from this money that is haram? Thank you very much.
Answer:
There are types of haram:
- Haram in and of itself such as wine... It is haram to gift with it, so it is forbidden (haram) for the owner of the wine and for the one whom the gift is for. The Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
????????? ????????? ???????????
"Khamr was forbidden in and of itself." (Narrated by an-Nasa'i)
- Haram for it is a human being's right (Haq) that is stolen or taken forcefully... This is forbidden (haram) for the thief and the usurper, in which it is not permissible to gift as it is haram for the one who took the money from it and for the recipient of the gift. This money is the right of its possessor, and wherever he is, the money must be returned to the rightful owner. Some of the evidences for this are:
???? ???? ???? ????????? ?????: ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????????: �????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ?????????? ???????????�
Ahmad has narrated on authority of Samurah that he said: The Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said: "If a man has something stolen from him, or loses something, and he finds it in the possession of a man who bought it, then he has more right to it, and the one who bought it should ask for his money back from the one who sold it to him."
This is a text that shows that stolen money must be returned to its owner.
Money by force is also guaranteed to the one from whom it was forced, so the usurper must return whatever taken by force to its possessor.
???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????: �????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????�? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????.
It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? said: "The hand which takes is responsible till it pays," narrated by at-Tirmidhi and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.
- Haram for batil (invalid) transactions such as the money of usury and gambling... This is forbidden only for the one who received it, but the haram does not extend to the one who received the money through a permissible manner from the one who commits riba or gambles. For example, selling the one who deals with riba goods and receiving their cost, the wife receiving her expenses from her husband who deals with usury, the one who deals with riba brings a gift to one of his relatives, or any other permissible transactions. The sin for this haram money applies on the who dealt with usury and neither on the one who attains the price of his goods, nor on the wife receiving her expenses, or the one receiving a gift, and that is because the haram does not regard two people in this state. Some evidences on that are:
1. Allah ?????? ?????? said:
????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????
"What each self earns is for itself alone. No burden-bearer can bear another's burden."
(Al-An'aam, 6:164)
2. The Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? used to deal with the Jews in Madinah, with the knowledge that most of their money was from riba. Allah ?????? ?????? said:
?????????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ????????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????* ???????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ???????? ????????????
"For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people]* And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people's wealth unjustly." The Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? used to accept gifts from them.
??? ???? ????? ????????: ????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????: �??? ???????? ????? ??? ?????????� ???????: ?????????? - ???? ??????? - ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??????.
It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that a woman from the Jews gave the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? a poisoned sheep, so he sent to her and said: "What induced you to do what you have done?" She said: "I liked - or I wanted- if you were a prophet, Allah will tell you, but if you were not a prophet, I should rid the people of you."
3. Some of the Sahaba and Tabi'een made it permissible to receive gifts from the one who takes riba:
??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????: ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ???????: "?????????? ???? ?????????? ????????" ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????.
A) A man came to Ibn Masoud and said: I have a neighbor who eats from usury, and he still invites me, so Ibn Masoud said: "the good deed is for you, and the sin is for him" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf.
B) Al-Hassan was asked: Can the food of moneychangers be eaten? He said: "Allah ?????? ?????? has told you about the Jews and an-Nasara, they used to eat from usury, and He made their food permissible for you"narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
??????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????????? ???????: "???? ?????????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????" ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????.
C) It was narrated by Mansour that he said: I told Ibrahim: I went to a worker's place, so he hosted me and offered me money. Ibrahim said: "Accept", so Mansour said: the worker takes usury. Ibrahim said: "Accept as long as you did not command him or help in his usury" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
???? ????????? ?????: ?????? ??????????????: ???????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????: "???????" ? ??????: ????????? ????? ?????: "??????? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ????????" ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????.
4. However, it is better not to deal with possessors of forbidden (haram) money that stemmed from usury, so you neither sell them nor accept a gift from them motivated by piety; so the seller will not receive profit from his riba-contaminated merchandise, and do not accept their gift so that it won't be from the money of usury. In this way, Muslims distance themselves from everything that is impure, and the Companions of the Messenger ??? ???? ???? ???? used to refrain from several permissible domains (Mubahat) for fear of approaching the haram.
??? ??? �??? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ????????�
It was narrated from the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? that he said: "No one will attain complete righteousness until he abandons (certain) unobjectionable (but doubtful) things so as to remain on his guard against something objectionable." (Narrated by at-Tirmidhi, and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.)
In conclusion, it is permissible to sell the one who takes usury from the banks or other places, and it is permissible to accept his gift, but it is better neither to sell him nor to accept his gift.
4 Safar 1434 AH
7/12/2012 CE

Q&A: Extent of State Involvement in Economics and Taxes | Sheikh Ata� Abu Rashtah

As-Salaamu Alaikum to our honourable Sheikh may Allah keep you safe and sound.
I want to know the extent of the involvement of the Islamic State's authority in economics as a whole and then the extent of its authority in the enforcement of taxes (Daraa'ib). How are taxes regulated in general according to the Fiqhi understanding?
From Anis Labidi
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Baraakatuhu,
Your question regarding the involvement of the State in the Economy and taxation...
1. In relation to the involvement of the State in the economy accordingly the Economic System in Islam has specified the obligations of the State and its rights in addition to the obligations and rights of the people according to the Shari'ah rules which regulate the responsibilities or powers of both the one responsible for the people's affairs and those being cared for (the people). And because the Islamic Economic System has a major effect in relation to properties in terms of the means of ownership and expenditure. Therefore Islam has specified (or defined) these properties, maintained and safeguarded them from any aggression. So there are individual properties, State properties and public properties and none of these infringe upon another. Therefore, the design of state involvement displayed in the current day where private property is seized and turned into public or state property, or the public property is turned into private property like the giving of petroleum and mineral concessions to the local and foreign private sector, all of the above is not permitted in Islam. Rather each remains within the limits of its ownership: The individuals in their private ownership, the state in regards to its ownership like those of the Ghanaa'im (spoils) and Kharaaj, and the Ummah in regards to its ownership like those related to petrol, minerals and energy resources. As such the pattern of state involvement that is known within the economic systems in our current age does not exist in the Islamic State.
2. As for taxes (dara'ib) then in accordance to Islam there are no taxes that are taken from the people as the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? used to manage the affairs of the people and it has not been proven that he ??? ???? ???? ???? enforced taxes upon the people and there are no reports whatsoever to indicate that he ever did. And when he ??? ???? ???? ???? learnt that those on the borders of the State took taxes upon the goods that entered the lands he forbade that. It has been reported from 'Uqbah Bin 'Aamir that he heard the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? saying:
?? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ??????
"He who imposes maks (custom duty) would not enter paradise" recorded by Ahmad and verified as Saheeh by Al-Haakim.
The Saahib Al-Maks is the person who takes taxes upon trade. This indicates the forbiddance of taking taxes according to the connotation defined by the West. In addition the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said in a Hadeeth that is agreed upon narrated by Abu Bakrah:
????? ??????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????
"Verily your blood, wealth (property) and honours are Haraam (to infringe upon) like the inviolability (Hurmah) of this day of yours, in this land of yours in this month of yours..."
And this Hadeeth is 'Aamm (general) and it includes within its meaning every person which includes the State and the taking of taxes means the taking of the wealth (monies) of the Muslims against their will which indicates its inadmissibility.
However there is an exclusive case in which the Shar'a has approved of them and permitted to take wealth according to its measured requirement without excess and it is only taken from the wealthy from the surplus of their wealth.
This case is when spending has been obliged upon the Bait ul-Maal (State Treasury) and the Muslims and there are not sufficient funds in the Bait ul-Maal and as such is taken from the surplus wealth of the rich in accordance to the amount that needs to be spent in order to meet it.
However if the spending is obliged upon the Bait ul-Maal alone and not upon the Muslims, then money is not taken for this from the Muslims if the funds in the Bait ul-Maal are insufficient, rather the need is (still required to be) spent upon it from the Bait ul-Maal.
So for example fulfilling the fundamental (basic) needs of the poor in terms of food, shelter and clothing, this is obligatory upon the State to be taken from the Bait ul-Maal just as it is Waajib (obligatory) upon the Muslims. He ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????????
"In any local community, if a person becomes hungry amongst them then Allah has nothing to do with them."(Recorded by Ahmad and narrated by Ibn 'Umar (ra))
So if there are insufficient funds to meet the basic fundamental needs of the poor in the Bait ul-Maal, then the amount required to meet these needs is taken from the rich without any increase above that.
And in the case of Al-Jihaad for example, it is also Fard (obligatory) upon the State and the Muslims due to the saying of Allah ?????? ??????:
??????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ??? ??????? ???????
"And do jihad with your wealth and yourselves in the Way of Allah."
(At-Tawba, 9:41)
And His statement ?????? ??????:
????????????????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????????
"And those who make Jihaad in the way of Allah with their wealth and their lives."
(an-Nisaa, 4:95)
Therefore meeting the needs of Al-Jihaad is treated in the same manner (as described in the first example).
And in this way it is understood that taxes are non-existent in Islam with the exception of this case in which it is obligatory for two conditions to be met:
First: That it is obligatory upon the Bait ul-Maal and upon the Muslims established by explicit (Sareeh) Shari'ah evidences.
Second: That there are not sufficient funds in the Bait ul-Maal to meet their needs.
So in this circumstance alone is the amount required to meet the need taken from the surplus wealth of the rich without any increase. And in regards to the surplus (faa'id) we mean that which is above the typical food of the rich, his clothing, housing, servants, wives and what he rides/drives to meet his needs, and all that is like this in accordance to the typical situation of those like him. This is because Allah ?????? ?????? said:
??????????????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ?????????
"They will ask you what they should give away. Say, 'Whatever is surplus to your needs.'"
(Al-Baqarah, 2:219)
Al-'Afwa means that which does not require effort to spend which means what is over his requirements according to what is known to be typical from those like him. And the Messenger of Allah ??? ???? ???? ???? said:
????? ??????????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????
"The best Sadaqah is that which is spent from the back of the richness (Zhahri Ghina)."
Agreed upon by way of Hakeem Bin Hizaam and Abu Hurairah. And the meaning of 'the back of the richness' (Zhahri Ghina) is any increase upon his known (typical) requirements of what is known (bil-ma'rouf).
And in conclusion there are no taxes in Islam except for this case and it can only be taken to meet the amount required to meet the need without any increase and it is not taken except from the back of the richness and this case rarely occurred throughout the Islamic history because the permanent resources of the State that Islam has explained were sufficient. However if required it is permitted to take the taxes according to the explanation provided above.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
01 Shaban 1434 AH
10 June 2013 CE
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...

Template by:
Free Blog Templates