Wake up to stop India's march towards Hindu Rashtra: Man killed over rumour of eating beef in Greater Noida's Dadri

Indscribe

Mohammad Ikhlaq, the father of an Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel, was dragged out of his house, beaten up and murdered in cold blood.

The mob that attacked his house in Dadri in Greater Noida, near Delhi, also seriously injured one of his sons.

Akhlaq died on the spot. The mob had gone berserk after announcement from a temple that there was beef kept in the house.

It was false, say prima facie reports. The rumour led to a maniac mob resorting to the middle-aged man's lynching.

Doesn't the incident near India's national capital, clearly shows how India is marching towards 'Hindu Rashtra'?

Just a day ago, a man in Kanpur was lynched on the false suspicion that he was a 'Pakistani terrorist'. He was thrashed, and he kept saying 'Allah, Allah', and was murdered. See

Another Muslim man was killed in Delhi by policemen, recently. And yet another, by a mob in Delhi, before that. But still, no one seems to notice how the hatred against Muslims has been going up. Systematically, the

1. Day in and day out, Sadhvis and 'Saints' issue ultimatums and threaten to send any Aslam, Abid and Athar to Pakistan.

2. Hate speech has become the norm and there are hardly any FIRs and absolutely no convictions.

A BJP MLA says Muslims should sacrifice their own sons rather than goats on Baqrid.

MP Sakshi Maharaj wants Muslims' voting right to be taken away, Sadhvi Prachi and Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti talk of Muslims 'giving birth to puppies' and 'ramzada Vs haraam-zada'

There are many more from Giriraj Kishore to Sadhvi Deva Thakur, Yogi Adityanath to Shiv Sena's leaders who keep targeting Muslims. In the last 1-1/2 years, this tendency to abuse Muslims openly, has gone up.

Not just in Gujarat, but in Samajwadi Party ruled UP and Congress-ruled Karnataka things are the same. 

3. More than 139 communal incidents have been reported from a single district, Mangalore, in Karnataka, lately. But no action has been taken to rein in the Saffron vigilantes.

4. Institutions are being taken over, laws are being misused, government remains mute spectator and administration acts only after an incident.

5. In one UP village, you won't allow people to even sacrifice goats. In another place in Karnataka, a Hindu girl and Muslim talking, would lead to Muslim man being stripped and beaten up publicly. 

6. Then, rationalists are being killed all over India. Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar, MM Kalburgi, have been shot dead. Many other secularists have been getting death threats.

7. Action is being taken in BJP ruled states to hurt Muslims engaged in meat business.

8. Laws have been amended and made stricter to such an extent that if a person gets caught on suspicion of carrying 'beef', it is up to him to prove his innocence.

9. The law-enforcing authorities are unable to control rioters and extremist groups within the country but, ironically, our government is more interesting in the internal situation in Nepal, and wants it to remain a Hindu Rashtra.

10. The situation within the country is such that law-and-order is collapsing. Vigilante groups and extremist organisations are calling the shots, but Prime Minister and Home Minister remain silent.

Still, it is not about Muslims alone. Of course, Muslims are the main thorn in the flesh of the 'Hindutva' leaders. But the idea of India is under attack. One after the other, It is time to wake up before it is too late.

Aditi Vatsa reported the story from Dadri ifrom  Indian Express. See link and read

Poetry against Extremism, Fastcism: Verse in memory of Mohammad Akhlaq, 'Ye khooni lashkar'

No courage to tackle right-wing: Does Congress have the guts to fight RSS, BJP?

Does the Congress have the guts, courage to fight RSS, BJP?  The answer is a clear, no.

United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power for ten  years, it could never crackdown on BJP.

The recent CBI raid on Himachal Pradesh's serving chief minister Virbhadra Singh's residence, is just an example.

It is well-known that without official 'go-ahead' from the Centre, such raids on a serving CM can't take place at all, in India. The agencies work under centre.

The raid shows how BJP manages to get agencies work for it. On the other hand, Congress was in power for 10 yrs, yet it could never get even a single tough action against Narendra Modi-led BJP government in Gujarat, then.

Even CBI officers who were probing Godhra case were known to be soft on Modi. When you run government, you have the power but you need to exercise it. 

Congress had neither the will, nor the courage to do it. 
BJP and RSS leaders were scared when right-wing terror modules were caught. 

Yet, it was Congress that seemed fearful to take action against Sangh leaders and NIA took years to even investigate and file charge-sheets. Convictions couldn't take place and BJP government took seat in Delhi. 

Now the case are being weakened. The Congress has always shown this kind of approach while dealing with the right-wing, and now it is facing existential crisis. Today, the result is that party is reduced to 40 seats.

If you have to fight RSS, show some courage. Will they learn now? No, it doesn't seem so. Congress doesn't have the courage and conviction to do it.

In Karnataka, it cowers in front of Ram Sene and other Hindutva groups.

In fact, either it is the communal situation in Mangalore in Karnataka or the ban on Sanatan Sanstha, it (Congress) has always been exposed. 

It can't take on right-wing forces and the right-wing elements that are active within the party. It is time for Rahul Gandhi and Congress to realise that there is no scope for such a party that functions in such a manner. 

Video: Making Dua' to Allah Azzawajal - Sheikh Abu Talha Malkawi

Speech in Ramadan by Sheikh Dr. Abu Talha Malkawi.

Q&A: The inheritance of those with relations by the womb (Dhuwu Al-Arhaam)

Question:

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu, Our honourable Sheikh, May Allah protect you and keep you under His care. In the book, �Funds in the Khilafah State� in the chapter: �The Property that has no Inheritors� on page 118 the following was mentioned: �Any property, whether movable or immovable, whose owner has passed away without an inheritor by right or by paternal relations such as where a person dies without a wife, children, father, mother, sisters or paternal relations, is transferred to the Bait ul-Maal as inheritance�.

The question is: Does this mean that the Hizb has adopted that the relations of the womb (Dhuwu Al-Arhaam) do not inherit when there are no inheritors by right or of paternal relatives? So in the case where a person dies and there is no inheritor from those who have been stipulated (Furood) and from his paternal relations (�Asabaat) despite the existence of maternal relatives, does the property that he leaves behind get transferred to the Bait ul-Maal whilst none of the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam (relations of the womb) have any right to what he has left behind? If this is the case then how do we understand that which has been related from Sahl Bin Hunaif; that a man struck another man with an arrow and killed him and that this man did not leave anyone behind apart from a Khaal (maternal uncle). So Abu �Ubaidah wrote to �Umar about this and so �Umar responded to him in writing: Verily I heard the Messenger of Allah ? say:

�??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????�

�Allah and His Messenger are the Mawlaa of the one who has no Mawlaa and the maternal uncle is the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor� (Narrated by At-Tirmidhi, An-Nisaa�i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad and Ibn Habaan). At-Tirmidhi said that this Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh and Ibn Habaan classified it as Saheeh. At-Tirmidhi said: This is a Hasan Hadeeth.

And Al-Miqdaam Bin Ma�daikrab related that the Messenger of Allah ? said:

�???? ?????? ????? ????????? (????????? ?????: ????? ????? ??????? ??????????) ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????????�

�Whoever leaves a pasture then it is to me (and perhaps he said: It is to Allah and to His Messenger) and whoever leaves a property then it is to his inheritors and I am the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor. I pay blood money for him and I inherit him. And the Khaal (maternal uncle) is the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor, he pays blood money on his behalf and he inherits him.� (Related by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, At-Tahawii, Ibn Habaan, Al-Hakim, Al-Baihaqi and Ibn Jarood).

Abu �Asim related from Ibn Juraij from �Amr Bin Muslim from Taawus from �Aishah (ra) that she said that the Messenger of Allah ? said,

�????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????�

�The paternal uncle (Khaal) is the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor� (At-Tirmidhi and Ad-Daruqutni).  At-Tirmidhi said: This is a Hasan Ghareeb Hadeeth.

These Ahadeeth proves that the Khaal is a Waarith (inheritor) whilst the Khaal (maternal uncle) is from the relations of the womb (Dhuwu Al-Arhaam). Therefore these Ahadeeth indicate that the relations of the womb inherit. And it has been related from Waasi� Bin Habaan that he said: �Thabit Bin Ad-Dahdahah passed away and he did not leave an inheritor or paternal relation and so his affair was raised to the Messenger of Allah ?. So he asked �Asim Bin �Adiy about him and whether he had left anyone behind �?? ??? ?? ????� and so he replied: O Messenger of Allah he has not left anyone.

�???? ???? ???? r ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????�

So the Messenger of Allah ? gave his property to the son of his sister Abi Lubabah Bin Abdul Mundhir�. (As-Suyooti said in �Jaami� ul-Hadeeth�: Sa�eed Bin Mansoor and its Sanad is Saheeh). And it has been related from Waasi� Bin Habaan that he said: �That Thabit Bin Ad-Dahdanah passed away and he was a man of Bani Aneef or Ban Al-�Ajlaan. So the Prophet ? said: � ?? ?? ?? ?????� �Does He have a Waarith (inheritor)?� But they were unable to find an inheritor for him. He said:

�???? ?????  r?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????�

 So the Prophet ? gave his property to the son of his sister Abu Lubabah Bin Abdul Mundhir� (Collections of Abdur Razzaaq).

I thank you greatly for your concern and for your answer our Noble Sheikh, May Allah recompense you with good and make the victory and unity occur upon your hands. Ameen. And I apologise for the length of the question. Your sister Umm Faqeeh Abdel Rahman.

From Yuce Ulfa

---

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu,

Before answering this question, it would be better to first explain the following:

Those who have a relation to the dead are divided into three categories within the �Ilm (knowledge) of Mawareeth (those who inherit):

1. As�haab ul-Furood (entitlement) and these are those who are entitled to a quantified portion of the Meeraath (the property being inherited) which the Shariah has stipulated in the text.
2. Al-�Asabaat (paternal relations) and these are those who have shares and quantified Furood (entitlements) from the Meeraath (inheritance) however the Shariah has stipulated that they take what is left from the Meeraath.
3. Dhuwu Al-Arhaam (relations by womb) and these are all of the remaining relatives who are not entitled (i.e. people of the Furood) or the �Asabaat. They number ten types: The Khaal and Khaalah (maternal uncle and aunt), the grandfather of the mother (Jadd ul-Umm), the son of the sister, the daughter of the brother, the daughter of the paternal uncle, the paternal aunt, the paternal uncle of the mother, the son of the mother�s brother and whoever attaches to one of them.

There is no dispute amongst the Muslims in respect to the As�haab ul-Furood and �Asabaat inheriting due to the clear evidences which have come in respect to them. This is because the Ayat of Al-Mawaareeth (related to inheritance) and the Saheeh Ahadeeth represent clear evidences establishing that they inherit� As for the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam (relations of the womb) there has occurred a difference of opinion in respect to whether they inherit in the time of the Sahabah, the Tabi�een and the Fuqahaa� who came after them�

Included in those who said that they do inherit from amongst the Sahabah are �Ali, Ibn Mas�oud and Ibn �Abbaas in the most famous of the reports attributed to him� From the Tabi�een they included Shuraih and Al-Hasan Al-Basri.

Included in those who said that they do not inherit from the Sahabah are Zain Bin Thabit and Ibn �Abbas in another report attributed to him� And from the Tabi�een they included Sa�eed Ibn Al-Musayib and Sa�eed Ibn Jubair�

Ash-Shafi�i held that there is no Meeraath (inheritance) for them and that the Bait ul-Maal is more entitled to it than them� And Abu Hanifah said: The Dhuwu Al-Arhaam are more entitled to the inheritance (Meeraath) than the Bait ul-Maal�

As such the Mas�alah (issue) is one in which there are differences of opinion and I will answer in accordance to what is the strongest in our view:

1. Yes the Hizb adopts the opinion that states that the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam do not inherit when there does not exist the As�haab ul-Furood and the �Asabaat and this is apparent in the text that the questioner has presented from the book �Funds in the Khilafah State�. And even clearer than that is what was mentioned in �The Social System� under the heading: �Maintaining Good Relations with Kith and Kin (Silat-ur-Rahm)� and states:

(Islam has divided the relations into two categories; firstly the relations from whom it is possible to inherit when they die. And secondly the relatives from the maternal side (Ulu al-Arham). As for the ones who have the right to inherit they are the ones entitled to a statutory portion of inheritance (Ashab al-Furud) and the agnate relations (relatives on the paternal side) (Asabat). As for relatives on the mother�s side (Ulu al-Arham) they are different from the former; they are the ones who have no share in inheritance nor are they from the agnate relations. They include ten categories: The maternal uncle (Khal) and aunt (Khala), maternal grandfather (Jadd li al-umm), son of the daughter and son of the sister, daughter of the brother, daughter of the paternal uncle and paternal aunt, and the half paternal uncle, son of the half brother and whoever declares to be one of them. Allah ?????? ?????? did not give those people any share in the inheritance of the person nor is their maintenance an obligation on the person.) End quote. So we adopt this opinion due to the preponderance of the evidences in our view in support of it.

2. So if a person dies and he does not have an inheritor from amongst the Ashaab ul-Furood and the �Asabaat, then the Bait ul-Maal of the Muslims is entitled to his Meeraath (inheritance) i.e. that the Bait ul-Maal is its inheritor. The evidence for that is:

� Al-Haakim extracted in �Al-Mustadrak� and he stated that this is a Saheeh Hadeeth upon the conditions of the Sheikhaini (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and they did not (themselves) extract it. Related from Rashid Bin Sa�d from Abi �Aamir Al-Hawzaniy from Al-Miqdaam Al-Jindiy (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah ? said:

�????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????��

�I am the Mawlaa of the one who has no Mawlaa, I inherit his property��

� Ibn Habaan extracted in his Saheeh from Rashid Bin Sa�d from Abi �Aamir Al-Hawzani from Al-Miqdam from the Messenger of Allah ? that he said:

�???? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????��

�Whoever leaves a pasture then it belongs to us and whoever leaves property then it belongs to his inheritors and I am the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor��

� Ibn Majah extracted in his Sunan from Rashid Bin Sa�d from Abi �Aamir Al-Hawzani from Al-Miqdam Ash-Shami that he said: The Messenger of Allah ? said:

�????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????????��

�I am the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor; I pay blood money on his behalf and inherit from him..�

These Ahadeeth are Sareehah (explicit) and Waadihah (clear) in respect to the Dalaalah (meaning) indicating that if the person dies and he does not have a Waarith (inheritor) then the inheritor in this case would be him, the Messenger ?. This is because he is the Waliy of the believers in their entirety and the Mawlaa of the one who has no Mawlaa. After him this Wilaayah (guardianship) was transferred to the Khalifah and the Khalifah became the Waliy of the believers in their entirety becoming the Mawlaa of the one who has none and the inheritor of the one who has no one to inherit from him. The inheritance of the Khalifah is not for himself personally but rather it for the Bait ul-Maal of the Muslims. In this way the inheritance of the one who has none to inherit from him turns into State property after having being from the private properties and is placed in the Bait ul-Maal, in the Diwan of Al-Fai�i and Al-Kharaaj. The Khalifah then disposes of it in the way that he views to be in line with the interests of the Muslims.

3. As for why the Hizb adopts that the Dhawu Al-Arhaam do not inherit then that is because the evidences related to inheritance from the Quran and Sunnah have come in a detailed manner and in a way making clear the Ahkaam (rulings) of the Meeraath (inheritance) and those who are entitled to it and these are:

� As�haab ul-Furood: Included in these evidences is His ?????? ?????? Saying:

?????????? ???????? ??? ????????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??????????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????�

�Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one�s estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one�s parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt�

(4:11)

And His Saying ?????? ??????:

???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????�

�And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. But if they have a child, for you is one fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. And for the wives is one fourth if you leave no child. But if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth. But if they are more than two, they share a third, after any bequest which was made or debt��

(4:12)

� And the �Asabaat: From amongst these evidences is his statement ? as extracted by Al-Bukhari and Muslim from Ibn �Abbas (ra) that the Prophet ? said:

�?????????? ??????????? ???????????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ??????�

�Give the Fara�id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur�an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased� i.e. to the closest inheritor from the �Asabaat. The following was mentioned in Fat�h ul-Bari: (Al-Khattabi said that the meaning is: The nearest man (male) from the �Asabah and Ibn Battaal said that was is intended is by the wording �Uolaa Rajulin� are the men (males) from the �Asabah after the people of the Furood. If there is amongst them the one who is closer to the dead then he is entitled and not the one who is further. If they are equal in closeness (of relation) then they share (in the inheritance)�)

There are no evidences that have come that provide the Dhawu Al-Arhaam shares of the inheritance and the Prophet ? reiterated this meaning in the Hadeeth related by At-Tirmidhi from Abi Umamah Al-Bahili who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ? saying in the Khutbah in the year of the Farewell Hajj:

�????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ????????? ?????????�

�Verily Allah Tabaaraka Wa Ta�Aalaa has given everyone entitled to a right his right, so there is no Wasiyah (will) to the Waarith (inheritor)�. 

And this Hadeeth in the Khutbah of the Farewell Hajj is representative of the last of what the Prophet ? spoke about before his death and it is in regards to the subject area of inheritance. Within the speech he explains that those who are rightfully entitled to the Meeraath are those whom Allah ?????? ?????? has provided with rights in respect to the inheritance in accordance to what came in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ?. These are the As�haab ul-Furood and the �Asabaat whilst the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam are not included amongst them in the case where Allah ?????? ?????? did not give them a share (or allotted portion) from the Meeraath (inheritance).

4. As for what was presented in the question in terms of narrations indicating that the Dhawu Al-Arhaam have a right in respect to the inheritance then they are not (in fact) indicating that and we will now examine them as following:

1) At-Tirmidhi related in his Sunan from Abi Umamah Bin Sahl Bin Hunaif who said: �Umar ibn Al-Khattab wrote in my company to Abu �Ubaidah that the Messenger of Allah ? said:

�??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????�

�Allah and His Messenger are the Mawlaa of the one who has no Mawlaa and the maternal uncle is the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor�� However there is another narration that explains the �Illah (legal reasoning). Abu Dawood related in his Sunan from Al-Miqdam who said: The Messenger of Allah ? said:

�???? ?????? ?????? ?????????� ?????????? ?????: �????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????????�?

�Whoever leaves a pasture then it is to me.� And perhaps he said: �It is to Allah and to His Messenger and whoever leaves a property then it is to his inheritors and I am the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor. I pay blood money for him and I inherit him. And the Khaal is the inheritor of the one who has no inheritor, he pays blood money on his behalf and he inherits from him�.

By combining the two Hadeeth it becomes apparent that the Khaal who is intended here is the one who ???????? ?????? (pays blood money on his behalf) which means that he is from his �Aaqilah. (This is whilst the �Aaqilah are only from the �Asabaat alone. As for other than them from the brothers from the mother and the rest of the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam and the Zawj (husband) and all those who are not from the �Asabaat, then they are not considered to be from the �Aaqilah. The �Aaqilah are the �Asabah of the man and these are his brothers, his paternal uncles, his sons and their children/offspring� These (Al-�Aaqilah) are those who pay the blood money of the unintentional act of killing in the case where only the �Aaqilah pays this. The �Aaqilah of the man are his �Asheerah (clan): His brothers, paternal uncles, his uncle�s sons and even the great-great grandfather�) Al-Uqubat (Punishments) � Chapter of who pays the Diyah (blood money).

Therefore the Khaal who is intended in the Hadeeth is the one who is from the �Asabah. This is like if the man was to marry the daughter of his paternal uncle so that the Khaal (maternal uncle) of his son would (also) be the son of his uncle meaning that he would be from the �Asabah and not only from the Dhuwu Al-Arhaam. Therefore the Hadeeth indicates that the one who dies whilst not having any inheritors from the As�haab ul-Furood but has a Khaal from his �Asabah then he inherits. And there is no dispute (or difference of opinion) in respect to the �Asabah inheriting in this situation (or these circumstances).

1. It was related in the Sunan of Sa�eed Bin Mansoor and in �Kanz ul-�Umaal from Muhammad Bin Yahya Bin Habban from his uncle Waas�I Bin Habban who said: �Thaabit Bin Ad-Dahdaha passed away and he did not leave an inheritor or �Asabah and so his affair was raised to the Messenger of Allah ?. So he asked �Asim Bin �Ad about him and whether he had left anyone behind and so he replied: O Messenger of Allah he has not left anyone. So the Messenger of Allah ? gave his property to the son of his sister Abi Lubabah Bin Abdul Mundhir�. As-Suyooti said in �Jaami� ul-Hadeeth� that its �Sanad is Hasan�. So it is clear from this narration that Thabit Bin Ad-Dahdaha did not leave a Waarith (inheritor) or �Asabah meaning that he did not leave anyone who was entitled to the inheritance and that the

Prophet ? paid the property to the son of his sister and not that he gave it as his right in respect to inheritance. This means he ? acted in his capacity as an Imaam (leader) and so gave the property to the son of his sister in accordance to his right to dispose of this property. Therefore this Hadeeth is an evidence indicating that the Dhawu Al-Arhaam are not possessors of the right in respect to the inheritance and it is not a Daleel indicating that they are inheritors. This is clear in the first narration when it stated: (??? ??? ????? ??? ????). (He did not leave behind a Waarith (inheritor) or an �Asabah).

That which confirms this is that the Messenger ? was asked about the inheritance of the �Ammah (paternal aunt) and the Khalah (maternal aunt) and he ? said:

�?? ????? ????�

�There is no inheritance for the both of them.�

The Hadeeth in full: Al-Hakim extracted in Al-Mustadrak upon the conditions of the two books of Saheeh and said that the Hadeeth is Saheeh in its Isnaad (chain of transmission of narration): From Ibn �Umar (ra) that he said: The Messenger ? proceeded upon a donkey and a man approached him and then said: O Messenger of Allah, a man who has left behind his paternal aunt and maternal aunt and he has no inheritor other than them? He (Ibn �Umar) said: So he lifted his head to the sky and then said: �?????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????????� �Allahumma, a man who has left his paternal aunt and maternal aunt and has no inheritor for him other than these two�. Then he said: �?????? ???????????� �Where is the questioner?� He said: Over here. He ? said: �??? ???????? ???????�  �There is no inheritance for them.�

Although the �Ammah (paternal aunt) and Khaalah (maternal aunt) are from the relations of the Arhaam the Messenger of Allah ? did not make them of those who are entitled to the inheritance.

1. However, the Hadeeth of Abu Lubabah provides an indication that if the dead person does not have an inheritor from the As�haab ul-Furood or the �Asabaat that the Khalifah can provide the Dhawu Al-Arhaam from what the deceased has left whether this is the whole amount or some of it. This means that it is not a Fard (obligation) for all of it to be put in the Bait ul-Maal if the dead person has Dhawu Al-Arhaam. This does not contradict our statement and opinion as stated in �Funds� when it says that the money of the dead would be in the Bait ul-Maal if the dead person does not have inheritors from the As�haab ul-Furood or �Asabaat. This is because the Khalifah is the one who handles and disposes of this property according to what he views to be in the interest of the Muslims. Therefore it is for him to give the property left behind by the dead to his Arhaam if that person does not have inheritors from the As�haab ul-Furood and the �Asabaat. Therefore if the Bait ul-Maal of the Muslims is non-existent in the absence of the existence of the Khalifah then the property of the dead that has no inheritor from the As�haab ul-Furood and the �Asabaat, that this property is paid (or given) to the Dhawu Al-Arhaam because they have more right to the money than other than them when the Imaam is absent.

This is the preponderant (strongest) view in the issue of the inheriting of the Dhawu Al-Arhaam and Allah is the Most Wise and Most Knowledgeable.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

20th Ramadhan 1436 AH

07/07/2015 CE

Link of the answer on the Ameer�s Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/Ata.abualrashtah/photos/a.154439224724163.1073741827.154433208058098/469140199920729/?type=1&theater

Q&A: The Intention of a Warring Belligerent to Reside in the Islamic State

Question:
Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem, Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh, our Esteemed Sheikh, I kindly ask from you to clarify this matter, may Allah reward you greatly. It has been mentioned in the book of Nizam Al Iqtisadi (The Economic System) [English version page 339-340/ Arabic p. 302]: �Giving the belligerent protection would also entail protecting his wealth. If he decided to settle in the Islamic State and were given the right of abode, then he decided to leave to the belligerent country� This is because if he left to the belligerent country, but with the intention to remain as a resident of the Islamic State, he would be treated like the Dhimmi who leaves to the belligerent country (Dar ul-Harb); therefore the same rule would apply to both�� The question is: according to my understanding, how can the State know his intention with the consideration that the intention is an intangible reality, and if the case is that the warring belligerent has informed the state departments of his decision to remain in the Dar ul-Islam so the situation then would be one of informing them (state departments) of the warring beligerent�s decision to leave and therefore it is not simply an intention, and upon it I reckon that the naming and description would be �according to his decision and not his intention�. Apologies for the long post, wasallam.
From Thiman bin Rizq

---

Answer:
Wa Alaikoum Al Salam wa Rahmat Allah wa Barakatuh,
The text that you are inquiring about in the book, The Economic System, in its full text is:
�Giving the belligerent protection would also entail protecting his wealth. If he decided to settle in the Islamic State and were given the right of abode, then he decided to leave to the belligerent country, leaving his wealth behind for a Muslim or for a Dhimmi to look after, or lending it to either of them, it would in this case have to be examined as to the reasons why he left. If he left for personal reasons, or as a trader, an envoy, a tourist or for a pressing matter, and returned to the Dar ul-Islam, then the protection he had been given to his person and his wealth would remain in force. This is because if he left to the belligerent country, but with the intention to remain as a resident of the Islamic State, he would be treated like the Dhimmi who leaves to the belligerent country (Dar ul-Harb); therefore the same rule would apply to both. His leave to the belligerent country would not nullify his protection as long as his intention is to reside in the Dar ul-Islam. However, if he returned to the belligerent country as a resident, his protection for himself would be nullified, and if he wished to return to the Dar ul-Islam, he would require a new application for protection.�
By intention, it is not meant in this context what is placed in the heart as is the case in worship rituals, but the intended here is to achieve the will and the decision, meaning that if the infidel warring belligerent decided to stay in the Islamic State� and using the term �intended� and �intention� is meant for will and decision as known in the books of Islamic Fiqh. Even so, the text did not stop at the term �intended�, but it rather added to it the term �residing� so it is said: �If he decided to settle in the Islamic State and were given the right of abode�, that is he decided to reside and his residence fully existed�

There is also a cute joke when mentioning �he intended� and he stayed� which is that he means actual residence, and not something else� and this is from the duties of the department which will authenticate that� by the permission of Allah, there will be a law in the Islamic State organizing the residence of the non-Muslims and those not having Islamic citizenship (tabiy�ya) if they enter the lands of the State� It would be within the law administrative procedures in the government departments that would be carried out for those who want to reside in the Dar al-Islam.

Your Brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
23 of Sha�ban 1436 AH
10/06/2015 CE

The link to the answer from the Ameer�s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/Ata.abualrashtah/photos/a.154439224724163.1073741827.154433208058098/454371801397569/?type=1&permPage=1

Video: The true motivation of a Dawah Carrier - Sheikh Abu Talha

The true motivation of a Dawah Carrier

Manakh / Open meeting held, on January 30 2015, in Copenhagen by Sheikh Dr. Abu Talha Malkawi.

'The Cross is ISIS' main enemy; today no trace of a Cross can be seen in Mosul'

This story provides further proof � if any is still needed � of the Islamic religious roots and motivations of the Islamic State. 

The Cross is symbolic of Islam's main enemy: Christianity. Under the terms of the dhimma contract and the Pact of Omar, Christians may not display the Cross openly, either on their buildings or on their person. 

The breaking of crosses is a potent symbol of Islam's global supremacy in the end times. Muhammad prophesied that when Isa (the Muslim Jesus) returns, he will  "fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill the swine and abolish jizya� and establish the rule of Allah throughout the world (Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Battles, 37:4310).

Demolition of churches and crosses, or converting churches into mosques, is a classic trait of Islam's treatment of Christians wherever it has conquered for fourteen centuries now. In our days, Muslims are even taking to breaking crosses in cemeteries, as seen in the infamous YouTube videos of 2012.

In Syracuse NY we recently saw the "breaking of the crosses" on a huge scale; a venerable Roman Catholic church was converted into a mosque, the crosses removed the spires, and 10,000 crosses in the interior covered over in a hugely symbolic victory for Islam.

See also Raymond Ibrahim's recent article, 'Islamic Hate for the Christian Cross', and my own piece 'Islam's Hatred of Holy Icons � and what that means for Persecuted Eastern Christians'. 

"The Cross is ISIS' main enemy; today no trace of a Cross can be seen in Mosul"

Pravoslavie, September 26, 2015:

(Mosul, September 23, 2015) A war is currently being waged against Christianity on the territory of the Biblical city of Nineveh, which is currently under control of the �Islamic State� militants: according to eyewitnesses� evidence, the fanatics are trying their best to eliminate the very memory of the Christian presence in Mosul, reports Ankawa news agency.

In his report, sent to the Ankawa agency�s staff writer Yunus Zanoun, the journalist A.S. from Mosul gave information about ISIS�s intention to wipe out all the Christian symbols from Nineveh, and that they are working hard in order to achieve this ambition. �The cross is ISIS�s main enemy; that is why today no traces of crosses can be seen in Mosul,� A.S. noted.

According to the journalist, the terrorists threw down all the crosses from domes of Mosul churches within two weeks after seizing city; they organized raids on houses of Christian residents of Mosul to destroy all the crosses and icons in the city.

�The dwellings were ravaged with great fury � and the vestiges of this hatred for Christianity can be seen here to this day� As for churches and monasteries, whole teams are involved in the job of dynamiting or partially demolishing their buildings. For example, large-scale work at the St. George�s Monastery in the al-Arabi neighborhood of Mosul was carried out to dismantle the iron crosses from the fencing, while the St. Ephraim�s Monastery in the ash-Shurta neighborhood was deliberately �enlarged��this was done to conceal a huge cross carved on the front of the monastery�s main church,� A.S. related.

At the same time, the Alsumaria.tv portal reported that �Islamic State� militants exploded a number of Christian homes in the Karakush district. There is still no information on the number of victims or the extent of damage to the residents� property.

How will the Khilafah Rashida organize Hajj?

With the tragic events that has resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives this Hajj we republish an article from 2012 by Ustadh Abu Khalid al Hejazi. 

The Islamic state will organize hajj with the objective of serving the pilgrims and assisting them in completing this obligation in the best manner possible. Making money out of the pilgrims, be it for the hotels or the transport or food would not be from its aims, it would rather curtail such practices if they happen.

Currently the planning of the Haram mosque doesn�t allow accommodation of more than 3.5 � 4 Million at one time. Considering the current population of the Muslim Ummah and its growth in terms of those accepting Islam the number of Hajis allowed to do Hajj need to be increased. This is the first challenge for the Islamic state. Any increase in the Hajis will require restructuring of the outside area and inside area of the masjid.

In 1982 when King Fahd came to power he announced the expansion of the haram and built an extension now known as the King Fahd extension. King Abdullah, the current king of Saudi has also announced another extension which is expected to be completed by 2020.

King Fahd�s extension plan required large areas of lands to be acquired from the surroundings of the mosque. Thousands of houses were destroyed which included many relics from the past. A large part of the acquired lands and houses were given away to real estate developers which led to several non-Muslims (who otherwise are not allowed entry into makkah) to open their hotels around Haram. Radission, Sheraton, Intercontinental�all of them have high valued properties surrounding the Haram. Not only this, they don�t mind giving away the holy land to ill-reputed people, not long ago infamous Paris Hilton was allowed to open her franchise showroom in the vicinity of the masjid.

So the expansion project for the King did not only give him political mileage but also benefited many of his family members who now had stakes in the fledging real estate property in Makkah.

Initially the Islamic state will attempt at increasing the open space surrounding the Haram so that more pilgrims can be accommodated. As temperatures can become very high during summers, the open space would also be covered using mechanical Umbrella shaped shades (similar to the ones used in Madina). Oxygen dispensers would also be installed along with them which will emit oxygen and moisture combined to eat the heat during summers. This would be initial plan of the state and then extensive makeovers will happen with time covering these spaces and air-conditioning them.

The current structure covers an area of 356,800 square metres (88.2 acres) including the outdoor and indoor praying spaces and can accommodate up to four million worshipers during the Hajj period.

It is noteworthy to mention that the gigantic Shamiyya project to the north west of the Sanctuary is being developed on an area of one million five hundred thousand square meters approximately, extending from the extremities of the sanctuary to beyond the second circular road to the north and from the Holy Mosque Street to the east and Jabal al Qaaba road to the west.

The plan includes Al-Shamiya, Garoul, Alqarara wa Alnqa. The area to be developed reached three million square meters distributed among different activities, of which hotels, hotel residences, commercial centers, and markets, general services, in addition to permanent residences for the people.

If only this area which is adjacent to the Haram was converted to a marbled plane praying space for the Pilgrims, it would accommodate 4.5 Million Musallis! And if it was converted into a two storey covered space then that number would be doubled. The existing area for developing AlShamiya includes developing residential and hotel spaces meant for 250,000 people and praying space for only 400,000 people.

The Jabal Omar project to the south western side of the mosque for which more than 600 properties have been seized involves constructing two five-star hotels with 935 rooms, and six three-star hotels comprising 1,255 rooms, across an area spanning 244,800 sq m. Residential buildings reaching 20 storeys to accommodate 100,000 people, 520 restaurants and 4,360 commercial and retail units are also being built. The current plans include a plan to make a 6 storey building for musalli�s to accommodate 100,000 musalli�s.

The Islamic state�s mission would be to ensure that the 5th pillar of Islam can be fulfilled by more and more people and in this endeavor it would not seek to make wealth from the pilgrims rather it would aim at assisting them and aiding them and providing them all the facilities which would make their pilgrimage easy.

Jabal Omar if it is only converted to a plane as mentioned earlier with mechanical umbrella shaped shadings and oxygen dispensers can accommodate 0.75 Million Pilgrims for prayers.

Jabal Khandama another project covering over 600,000 Sq Meters of space is being developed into mixed use area mostly hotels and residential apartments and shopping units. Redeveloping this area as a prayer space will give space to about 2 Million Musalli�s.

All these projects are adjacent to the Haram and can be annexed with the Haram with ease.

In most of these projects properties are acquired often with little or no compensation and in some cases the owners are given less than a week to leave the property.

The jabal kaaba is another of these projects which covers about 46,000 Sq meters. Similar is the case with the Ajyad fortress on the mount bulbul which was destroyed to build the Abraj al bait towers. These towers along with other towering structures are a violation of the Kaba�s sanctity. It is ironical that on one hand airplanes cannot fly from above the Haram but on the other hand high rise towers can constantly dwarf the Haram.

Historic sites of religious importance which have been destroyed by the Saudi�s include five of the renowned �Seven Mosques� initially built by Muhammad�s ??? ???? ???? ???? daughter and four of his �greatest Companions�: Masjid Abu Bakr, Masjid Salman al-Farsi, Masjid Umar ibn al-Khattab, Masjid Sayyida Fatima bint Rasulullah and Masjid Ali ibn Abu Talib.

It has been reported that there now are fewer than 20 structures remaining in Mecca that date back to the time of Muhammad. Other buildings that have been destroyed include the house of Khadijah, the wife of Muhammad, demolished to make way for public lavatories; the house of Abu Bakr, Muhammad�s companion, now the site of the local Hilton hotel; the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of Muhammad, and the Mosque of Abu-Qubais, now the location of the King�s palace in Mecca; Muhammad�s birthplace, demolished to make way for a library; and the Abraj Al Bait Towers, built after demolishing the Ottoman-era Ajyad Fortress.

The ostensible reason for much of the destruction of historic buildings has been for the construction of hotels, apartments, parking lots and other infrastructure facilities for Hajj pilgrims. However, many have been destroyed without any such reason. For example, when the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of Muhammad ??? ???? ???? ???? was discovered and excavated, King Fahd himself ordered that it be bulldozed in case it should become a pilgrimage site.

The Kings Palace on mount Abu Qubais which covers over 100,000 sq meters will make way for accommodating more pilgrims for prayer.

So if the surrounding region of the Mosque was freed from buildings and even if it was preliminarily converted into marbled open space, it would make space for at least 10 million Pilgrims.

Certain structural changes to the mosque will also have to be performed. For e.g., the mataf (tawaf area) will have to be expanded. Removal of the ottoman era enclosure will lead to much more space in the mataf area and further expansion of the mataf can be done by removing more of the enclosure so that the mataf size increased.

To ease matters for children, women and elderly people, the State would make use of modern technologies such as travelators on the upper floors. Not only will this ease the matters for the pilgrims but will also stop the wheelchair owners from charging people exorbitantly.

As for the evidence why travelators may be used, we know this from the hadith Narrated by Ibn Abbas (RA): In his Last Hajj the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? performed Tawaf of the Ka�ba riding a camel and pointed a bent-headed stick towards the corner (Black Stone). [Bukhari]

Similarly travelators may be employed between the Safa and Marwa as well.

The second challenge the State will face will be that of the residence for the dwellers of Makkah and the pilgrims. Makkah being a mountainous region has several mountains which cover its terrain. Removing these mountains and developing the areas into residential areas will solve lot of the residential problem. Large swathes of land are covered by these mountains towards the south east of the mosque, and to the north of hijrah district and the south of Mahbas Al jenn parking.

With the growth of the Muslim population, there will come a time when even what the State would have planned will fall short. The state will then have to work on establishing satellite towns next to makkah to house the Pilgrims and city dwellers but such a reality is not expected very soon but will certainly happen when the whole world converts to Islam.

?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ? ??? ???? : ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???????

It was narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, from Tameem Al-Daari, who said that he heard the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? say: �Verily, this matter (Islam) will reach where day and night have reached, and it will not leave a house of Madar (mud or clay) or a house of Wabar (fur of camels and goats, i.e. tents) except Allah will bring it into this Deen, (either) with the honour of an honoured one, or the disgrace of a disgraced one; honour with which Allah honours Islam, and disgrace with which Allah disgraces Kufr.�

The third challenge the state will face is that of transportation. A complete overall of the current transport system is required. A combination of public transport System & Mass Rapid Transport systems (MRTS) will serve the needs of the pilgrims. The Mass Rapid transport systems will be employed in the sacred places such as the Makkah mosque, Mina, Muzadalifa , Arafah initially but will eventually cover all the areas of the Sacred sites.

The design and construction of the MRTS would be underground and would involve several lines at each port. This is so as to avoid congestion at the ports of embarking and disembark. Examples of effective utilization of MRTS in cities like Malaysia, Delhi, London and others will be studied and adopted.

At any station the number of people who can embark on a train and the number of trains that arrive periodically should be planned in such a way so that there are mishaps and accidents due to overfilling of stations.

This year in Arafah, several people died at the metro stations. The reason being that there are 21 trains and each train can take 4000 pilgrims at one point of time but the number of pilgrims who had entered the stations just after sunset was much larger. Many died due to suffocation and some died due to the ensuing stampede. The Islamic state cannot afford to experiment putting the lives of the Muslims are stake so it will plan things in a manner that do not cause hassle for the pilgrims.

As for the public transport, there is a serious lack of public transport vehicles inside the city and the roads are narrow and badly managed. Private cars would not be allowed near high congestion areas like the Haram mosque and Arafah and transport in these areas will be provided by the States vehicles.

As for the challenge the state will face for Mina, Muzdalifa and Arafah. The reality of these towns is similar to that of Makkah, they are mountainous. Where there are mountains they should be brought down and high storey buildings built in their place. The sunnah for the haji is to stay in Mina and not that it has to be in a tent and therefore high storey buildings will allow very high and effective utilization of space.

The reason why the Saudi government has not attempted at constructing the buildings is because of the very low return on investment on their money. The Islamic states ROI will be the reward for its efforts it would make in making Hajj easy for the Muslims.

The current problem in these three towns is that of transport and space, the MRTS will resolve the transport problem and high rise buildings will address the space constraints.

The current planning of Jamarat is excellent and can accommodate a much larger number of pilgrims than todays.

Another challenge the state will face is that of food and water. Large desalination plants will be installed in Jeddah to cater to increasing need of water and Zamzam water will be availed at different places around the city and the other sacred places. A strict control over food quality will be maintained, no adulteration in the food will be allowed and overcharging the pilgrims will not be allowed.

All this will be maintained more by developing the Taqwa in the people and reminding them and less by the stick.

The State will endeavor a similar parallel program in Madina as in Makkah.

May Allah ?????? ?????? grant us the victory and allow us to re-establish the Khilafah on the path of prophethood soon.