The contracts and transactions that were concluded, together with the courts' verdicts that were confirmed and executed before the establishment of the Khilafah are considered valid between their parties till the end of their execution before the Khilafah. Judiciary in the Khilafah would not repeal them and nor start them again. No new lawsuits would be accepted regarding them after the establishment of the Khilafah.
Two cases would be excluded of that:
1. If the case that was confirmed and its execution was finished still have a continuous effect that contradicts Islam.
2. If the case relates to somebody that hurt Islam and Muslims.
The evidence for not repealing the contracts, transactions and lawsuits that were confirmed and whose implementation finished before the establishment of the Khilafah, and nor raising them again in other than the above mentioned two cases is that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم did not return back after the conquest of Makkah to his house from which he emigrated.
Uqayl ibn Abi Talib had, according to the laws of Quraish, inherited the houses of his relatives that embraced Islam and emigrated. He had disposed of them and sold them, including the house of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. It was said at that time to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم: "In which house are you going to stay?" He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Has Uqayl left any of our houses?" [Bukhari, Sahih, #3058]
In another narration, he said: "Did Uqayl leave to us any house?" He had then sold the houses of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, but the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم did not repeal them. The hadith is reported by Al-Bukhari through Usama ibn Zayd, he said: "That he said on the day of the conquest, ‘O Messenger of Allah, where do you want to stay tomorrow?' The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘Did Uqayl leave us any house?'" [Bukhari, Sahih, #3058].
It was also narrated that when Abu Al-‘As ibn Al-Rabi' embraced Islam and emigrated to Al-Madinah, his wife Zainab had then embraced Islam and emigrated after Badr, while he remained Mushrik in Makkah, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم returned to him his wife, without renewing her marriage contract to him. This was recognition of the marriage contract concluded at Jahiliyyah time. Ibn Majah reported through Ibn Abbas (ra): "That the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم sent back his daughter, i.e. Zainab to Abu Al-‘As ibn Al-Rabi' after two years based on her first marriage contract". [Tirmidhi, Sunan, #1142]
With regard to raising the lawsuits that have continuous effect contradictory to Islam, the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم had cancelled the usury left to Abbas on the people after they came to the Islamic State, and only gave their actual capital. This means after dar ul-Islam, the usury left upon them would become cancelled usury. Abu Dawud narrated through Suleiman ibn Amru from his father, he said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say in the farewell pilgrimage:
"Behold! Any usury from the days of Jahiliyyah is cancelled. You are only entitled of your capitals, where you do not wrong (others) and nor are you wronged."
Moreover, those who were married to more than four wives according to the laws of Jahiliyyah were obliged after dar ul-Islam to hold to four only. Al-Tirmidhi reported through Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that Ghaylan ibn Salamah Al-Thaqafi embraced Islam while having ten wives in Jahiliyyah, and they embraced Islam together with him. "The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم commanded him to choose four of them."
Therefore, the contracts that have continuous effect contradictory to Islam, such effects are removed after the establishment of the Khilafah. This removal is obligatory.
If for example a Muslim woman was married to a Christian before Islam, then after the establishment of the Khilafah this contract is cancelled in accordance with the rules of shara.
In regards to starting lawsuits related to those who harmed Islam and the Muslims, this is permitted because the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, when he conquered Makkah declared the blood of some people to be shed with impunity as they used to harm Islam and Muslims in Jahiliyyah. He asked that their blood be shed even if they hung themselves to the curtains of the Ka'bah. This is despite the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم saying: "Islam removes that which comes before it", as narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani from Amr ibn Al-As. This means the one that harmed Islam and Muslims are excluded from this hadith.
Since the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم forgave some of them later on, such as his forgiving to Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl, therefore the Khalifah is allowed to start a lawsuit against these or forgive them. This applies to those who used to torture Muslims for saying the truth or those who defamed Islam. The hadith: "Islam removes that which comes before it", [Ahmad, Musnad, 4/199] does not apply to them, for they are excluded of it, and a case is started against them according to the view of the Khalifah.
In other than these two cases the contracts concluded before the establishment of the Khilafah, together with the transactions and lawsuits are not cancelled and nor started as long as they were confirmed and their implementation finished before the establishment of the Khilafah.
Thus, if a man for example was sentenced with two years of imprisonment for a charge of breaking the doors of a school, and he finished the two years before the establishment of the Khilafah and he left the prison. Then after the establishment of the Khilafah he wanted to start a case against the one that imprisoned him for that charge because he views that he did not deserve imprisonment. Such a case is not accepted, because it happened, and a sentence was given for it and its implementation finished before the establishment of the Khilafah. He has to refer this matter to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, anticipating reward from Him سبحانه وتعالى.
If however, this man was sentenced for ten years, of which two had finished, and the Khilafah was established; in this case the Khalifah is allowed to examine the case, either by cancelling the sentence of punishment from its origin, thus letting him come out of the prison as free of the charge, or to be satisfied with the period he already spent, and he comes out of the prison. It is also possible to study the remaining time of the sentence taking into consideration the relevant divine rules and the interest of the citizens, particularly the issues related to the rights of the people, such that it removes the discord.
The above chapter is taken from the book:
The Institutions of State in the Khilafah in Ruling and Administration
(A translation of Ajhiza Dawlat-al-Khilafah) by Hizb ut-Tahrir
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Adnan Khan
said:
 |
IMF AND WORLD BANK LOANS As the Khilafah is a Sovereign state it will independently decide on how such debts will be repaid (if they are at all). All IMF and World Bank as well as foreign free market influence will be deconstructed and removed. No foreign institutes are allowed to organise the Khilafah’s economy or define for it the means to repay it. If repayment is taken as the policy the original sums will only be repaid, without the interest and the corrupt rulers who took out the loans will contribute to such repayments. Pakistan’s coals reserves which are the equivalent of over 600 billion barrels of oil could pay of its debt 12 times over. Indonesia is amongst the world’s largest exporter of coal, fresh fruit, tin and liquefied natural gas, the export earnings on their own could pay of their debts. Turkey’s agricultural revenue from its agrarian exports is more than ample to pay of their debts. Such minerals when sold on the international markets would have brought in more than enough currency to repay the debt. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
sunny
said:
 |
They can't challenge us intellectually so they challenge us on frivalties. The fact that 6 out of 10 voted for the ban shows that serbia is all of europe. This is not a case of poor Europeans being manipulated by a barrage of "rightist", post 9/11 state sponsored anti-Islamic propoganda. for, even before 9/11, in "multicultural" and "tolerant" canada, in the 1990s (before 9/11), in the city of Brampton where I lived, the residents barred a mosque from being built on land which had already been purchased for the purpose. The residents cited parking concerns, however, even the city councellor representing that constituency implied his constituents were racist and knew the "real" reason they did not want the mosque in their neighbourhood. (During the same time period, a walmart, a super plaza, 2 more plazas and a nursery have been built on the same intersection.) Also the destruction of Babri Masjid in India happen several years before 9/11. A sharp twist recently has been the destruction of a mosque at the hands of muslims themselves. Indeed, the red mosque incident showed just how insecure muslims are even amongst other muslims. What was common back then, and what is common now, and what is really causing people to desecrate our mosques, and even worse, our woman and children, is the missing caliphate. The fact that we are not politically united under a single caliphate, administering shariah without compromise, and undertaking both offensive and defensive jihad, is the only reason why people don't think twice before attempting to violet our persons and properties. Had the entire Muslim world united with the Tailban, that same Taliban which did not compromise on the security of one Muslim man, we would be in a stronger and more secure situation than we are in right now, even in europe. Resurrect the caliphate, undertake jihad, free aafia siddiqui, execute all those who partook in her ordeal, reunite her with her children, do the same for all the incarcerated and abused people in this ummah, spread justice globally the way injustice is spread, spear none of these treacherous rulers and give them all the death penalty, eject all kuffar forces from Muslim lands, and obliterate poverty. These, then, are the goals. Post Script: The swiss excuse was that the minaret represented the political triumph of Islam. They should know that when Islam was at its finest under the Prophet of the desert (PBUH), and was triumphing politically like a lion, the mosque in Medina was extremely modest and simple. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Amin
said:
 |
SALAM-O-ALIKUM, BROTHER, YOU REPLY IS CLEAR AND VERY INFORMATIVE. BUT IT DO NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. IT IS TRUE THAT THE KHILAFAH WILL RECOVER ILLICIT MONEY FROM THE CORRUPT RULERS AND ANY OTHER CILVIL SERVENT E.T.C. BUT MY QUESTION IS: INSHALLAH AFTER THE ESTABLISH OF KHILAFAH IN PAKISTAN, WILL KHILAFAH PAY BACK THE LOANS TO IMF, WORLDBANK, U.S.A e.t.c TAKEN BY THE FORMER RULERS. KEEPING IN MIND THAT THOSE LOANS WERE DESIGNED TO FURTHER DESTROY ISLAM & MUSLIMS AND INCREASE THE POVERTY AND FURTHER ENSLAVE THE COUNTRY. WHAT WILL BE KHILAFAH'S STANCE TOWARDS PAYING BACK THE LOANS TAKEN FROM IMF, OTHER COUNTRIES, WORLD BANK e.t.c. ?? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
 |
In the book "Hizb ut-Tahrir" it states: Similarly, to take aid or loans from these countries (disbeliever nations) is prohibited because their loans are with interest which is prohibited because it is riba and because these loans and aid are a means of creating influence for these Kufr countries over Muslims and their lands. All this is prohibited by the Shari’ah principle: “The means to a prohibited thing is prohibited.” In the book "Funds in the Khilafah State" it states: Illicit money (Mal al-Ghulul) is property acquired by the governors, government employees and civil servants illegitimately, whether acquired from the State or peoples’ properties. Nothing is allowed for them except what the State obliged for them as compensation or a salary. Any other money acquired by force, authority or their position is considered illicit property and illegally acquired, whether acquired from the State’s or individuals’ property. It is property not legally owned as it was acquired illegitimately and must be returned to its owner if known. If the owner is not known, then it must be confiscated and placed in the Bait ul-Mal of the Muslims. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Amin
said:
|
Salam-o-Alikum The loans given to any country by IMF or WORLDBANK are designed not to benifit that country but the Colonial powers like U.S.A, so that the poor countries can mould their policies , agriculture , production in a way that benifits the Colonial Powers but not the country or the people of the country. Second, that loan ends up in the Swiss accounts of the polititions instead of being used for public benifit. For Example: After the Economic Downturn in Feb 2009, IMF gave loan to Pakistan, with a policy defining in which areas the funds should be spent (which are of no public benifit) and other Terms & Conditions designed to further weaken Pakistan and incease the already widespread povert e.t.c. e.t.c... Eventually it is clear that these loans never reached public and were never designed to benifit Pakistan, instead it was to further enslave Pakistan. The case of international loans, specially from IMF & WorldBank is to destroy the nations, but to build. What will be Hizb's Stand on this issue. Its clear that all these loans are interest (Riba'h) based, and Khilafah will not pay any Riba'h. But in the case above, the capital itself never reached the public and secondly, the loan was given with the intention to further destroy & enslave muslims & islam. And these loans were never accepted by the people, because they allways knew that these loans are not in their benifit bcause it will never reach their pockets, But they were powerless infront of the ruler who accepted those loans and transfered it to Swiss accounts. Please explain in details, As I have discussed this with many but have not recieved a clear answer yet. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Manzoor-ul Haq
said:
 |
If one write a will leaving funds in favour of future Khilafah state, will that be honoured and entered into 'good action' roll to benefit from the bounty of Allah SWT. Any suggestion please. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
k. jay
said:
 |
what about fornication and adultry before the state is established |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|