Judging by What Allah has Revealed

"Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fasiqun (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allah." ( Qur'an 5 : 47)

Here three judgements are issued against those who do not judge in accordance with the Law revealed by Allah. The first is that they are kafir (unbelievers); the second, that they are zalim (wrong-doers); and the third, that they are fasiq (transgressors). This clearly means that one who, in disregard of Allah's commandments and of the Laws revealed by Him, pronounces judgements according to man-made laws (whether made by himself or by others) is guilty of three major offences. First, his act amounts to rejecting the commandment of God, and this rejection is equivalent to kufr (infidelity, unbelief). Second, his act is contrary to justice, for only the laws made by Allah are in complete accord with the dictates of justice. Any judgement in contravention of Allah's injunctions amounts, therefore, to committing injustice (zulm). Third, when he enforces either his own or anyone else's law in disregard of the Laws of his Lord he steps out of the fold of subjection and obedience, and this constitutes fisq (transgression).

Kufr, zulm and fisq are essential elements in deviation from Allah's commandments. One finds them wherever there is deviation from the commandment of Allah. There is variation in the degree of deviation and hence in the degree of these three offences. Whoever passes judgement on something in opposition to an injunction of Allah, believing that injunction to be false, and holds either his own or anyone else's judgement to be sound, is an unbeliever (kafir), wrong-doer (zalim) and transgressor (fasiq). A man who is convinced that the injunctions of Allah are right but makes judgements contrary to them in practice is not an unbeliever in the sense that he ceases to remain a member of the Islamic community, but he is guilty of adulterating his faith by blending it with kufr, zulm and fisq. In the same manner, those who deviate from the injunctions of Allah in all matters are unbelievers, wrong-doers and transgressors. For those who are obedient in some respects and disobedient in others, the blending of faith and submission to Allah with the opposite attributes of unbelief, wrong-doing and transgression in their lives will be exactly in proportion to the mixture of their obedience to and their deviation from Allah's commands.

Some commentators have attempted to restrict the application of these verses to the People of the Book alone. The verses, however, hardly lend themselves to such a restrictive interpretation. The best answer to such a restrictive interpretation has been given by the Companion Hudhayfah. When someone told him that these verses related merely to the Israelites, meaning that the unbelievers, wrong-doers and transgressors were only the Jews who passed judgement contrary to the injunctions revealed by Allah , Hudhayfah remarked: 'What good brothers these Israelites are to you! Whatever is bitter goes to them; whatever is sweet comes to you. Nay, by Allah, you will follow their way, your steps following theirs.'

Allah Mentions `Isa and Praises the Injil

"And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) , confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious." (Qur'an 5 : 46)

Allah said,

(and We sent...) meaning, We sent

(in their footsteps) meaning the Prophets of the Children of Israel,

(`Isa, son of Maryam, confirming the Tawrah that had come before him,) meaning, he believed in it and ruled by it.

(and We gave him the Injil, in which was guidance and light) a guidance that directs to the truth and a light that removes the doubts and solves disputes,

(and confirmation of the Tawrah that had come before it,) meaning, he adhered to the Tawrah, except for the few instances that clarified the truth where the Children of Israel differed. Allah states in another Ayah that `Isa said to the Children of Israel,

(. ..and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you.) So the scholars say that the Injil abrogated some of the rulings of the Tawrah. Allah's statement,

(a guidance and an admonition for those who have Taqwa.) means, We made the Injil guidance and an admonition that prohibits committing sins and errors, for those who have Taqwa of Allah and fear His warning and torment. Allah said next,

(Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent. Allah said in other Ayat

(Say "O People of the Scripture! You have nothing (guidance) until you act according to the Tawrah, the Injil, and what has been sent down to you from your Lord.'') and,

(Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Tawrah...) until,

(...successful.) Here, Allah said,

(And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the rebellious.) meaning, the rebellious and disobedient of Allah who prefer falsehood and abandon truth. We mentioned before that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians, and this is evident from the context of the Ayah.

So clearly we recognize the Messiah did not expound a new religion. That very religion which had been the religion of all the Prophets was also his religion, and it is towards that religion that he called people. He believed in the true teachings of the Torah which were extant in his time, and the Gospels (Injil) confirm this (see, for example, Matthew 5: 17-18). The Qur'an repeatedly stresses the fundamental fact that none of the Prophets of Allah, no matter in which part of the world they appeared, denied the Prophets who had preceded them. On the contrary, each Prophet confirmed the message of his predecessors and sought to promote the mission which was the sacred legacy of them all. Allah did not reveal any of the Books in order to repudiate the previous ones; each confirmed and supported the preceding ones.

Retaliation for Wounds

"And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life , eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers - of a lesser degree)." (Qur'an 5 : 45)

Imam Abu Nasr bin As-Sabbagh stated in his book, Ash-Shamil, that the scholars agree that this Ayah (5:45) should be implemented, and the Imams agree that the man is killed for a woman whom he kills, according to the general indications of this Ayah. A Hadith that An-Nasa'i recorded states that the Messenger of Allah had this statement written in the book that he gave `Amr bin Hazm,

(The man is killed for the woman (whom he kills).) In another Hadith, the Messenger said,

(Muslims are equal regarding the sanctity of their blood.) This is also the opinion of the majority of the scholars. What further supports what Ibn As-Sabbagh said is the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said, "Ar-Rabi` (his aunt) broke the tooth of a girl, and the relatives of Ar-Rabi` requested the girl's relatives to forgive (the offender), but they refused. So, they went to the Prophet who ordered them to bring about retaliation. Anas bin An-Nadr, her brother, asked, `O Allah's Messenger! Will the tooth of Ar-Rabi` be broken' The Messenger of Allah said, `O Anas! The Book of Allah prescribes retaliation.' Anas said, `No, by Him Who has sent you with the Truth, her tooth will not be broken. ' Later the relatives of the girl agreed to forgive Ar-Rabi` and forfeit their right to retaliation. The Messenger of Allah said,

(There are some of Allah's servants who, if they take an oath by Allah, Allah fulfills them.)'' It was recorded in the Two Sahihs.

Allah said

(and wounds equal for equal.) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "Life for life, an eye for an eye, a nose, if cut off, for a nose, a tooth broken for a tooth and wounds equal for wound.'' The free Muslims, men and women, are equal in this matter. And their slaves, male and female, are equal in this matter. And this ruling is the same regarding intentional murder and lesser offenses, as Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded.

The retaliation for wounds should not be implemented until the wounds of the victim heal. If retaliation occurs before the wound heals, and then the wound becomes aggravated, the victim will have no additional rights in this case. The proof for this ruling is what Imam Ahmad narrated from `Amr bin Shu`ayb, from his father, from his grandfather that a man once stabbed another man in his leg using a horn. The victim came to the Prophet asking for retaliation, and the Prophet said

(Not until you heal.) The man again came to the Prophet and asked for equality in retaliation and the Prophet allowed him that. Later on, that man said, "O Messenger of Allah! I limp now.'' The Messenger said,

(I had asked you to wait, but you disobeyed me. Therefore, Allah cast you away and your limp has no compensation.) Afterwards, the Messenger of Allah forbade that the wound be retaliated for until the wound of the victim heals. If the victim is allowed to retaliate for his wound caused by the aggressor and the aggressor dies as a result, there is no compensation in this case, according to the majority of the Companions and their followers.

Allah said

(But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation.) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented that

(But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity) means; "If one pardons by way of charity, it will result in expiation for the aggressor and reward for the victim.'' Sufyan Ath-Thawri said that `Ata' bin As-Sa'ib said that Sa`id bin Jubayr said that Ibn `Abbas said, `He who pardons the retaliation by way of charity, it will be an expiation for the aggressor and a reward for the victim with Allah.'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. Jabir bin `Abdullah said that Allah's statement,

(But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation,) "For the victim.'' This is also the opinion of Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and Abu Ishaq Al-Hamdani. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying,

(Any man who suffers a wound on his body and forfeits his right of retaliation as way of charity, then Allah will pardon him that which is similar to what he forfeited.) An-Nasa'i and Ibn Jarir recorded this Hadith. Allah's statement,

(And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the unjust.) Earlier we mentioned the statements of `Ata' and Tawus that there is Kufr and lesser Kufr, injustice and lesser injustice and Fisq and lesser Fisq.

So it is clear whoever forgoes his right of retaliation does a good deed which will atone for many of his sins. The same is confirmed by a tradition of the Prophet (peace be on him) in which he said: 'Whoever receives an injury on his body, then pardons (the inflictor of the injury), his sins are atoned for to the measure of his pardoning.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, pp. 316, 329 - Ed.)

See also Exodus 21: 23-5.

Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah...

"Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcomed. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell." (Qur'an 8:36)

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/10/23/pentagon-admits-airdropped-weapons-taken-by-isis.html?ESRC=eb.nl

The Jew; A True Chauvinistic Sectarian Creature

"Verily, We did send down the Taurat (Torah) [to Musa (Moses)], therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah's Will, judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the priests [too judged the Jews by the Taurat (Torah) after those Prophets] for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto. Therefore fear not men but fear Me (O Jews) and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws )." (Qur'an 5 : 44)

Here Allah in this verse tells the Jews that all the Prophets were muslims (submitters to God) whereas the Jews had deviated from islam (submission to God), and true to their chauvinistic sectarianism, were content with remaining merely 'Jews'.

"The worst place on earth is the markets" (and the worst markets are the Parliaments because in it the words of Allah is sold for a miserable price...)...

"...THEIR TRUE RELIGION CONSISTED MERELY OF WORSHIPPING THEIR INTERESTS AND DESIRES..."

With regards the Qur'anic verses I made mention of before; chapter 5:41-44:

In these verses, Allah has unmasks completely the dishonesty of these people. It shows how these so-called religious people who had cast the spell of their religious piety and knowledge of the Scriptures over the whole of Arabia had set aside a categorical injunction of the book which they themselves recognized to be the Book of Allah, and which they professed to believe in. They had referred that judicial case to the Prophet (peace be on him) for his decision even though they vehemently denied his prophethood. This made it quite clear that there was nothing to which they subscribed sincerely. THEIR TRUE RELIGION CONSISTED MERELY OF WORSHIPPING THEIR INTERESTS AND DESIRES. They were ready to turn their backs upon the very book which they recognized as the Book of God merely because some of its injunctions were unpalatable to them, and in such cases they did not mind approaching one whom they regarded as an imposter (may God be our refuge from such a blasphemy) in the hope that they might be able to obtain a judgement to their liking.

This certainly explains a lot of what is happening in the world today. .. ".. "...THEIR TRUE RELIGION CONSISTED MERELY OF WORSHIPPING THEIR INTERESTS AND DESIRES..."

Do Not Feel Sad Because of the Behavior of the Jews and Hypocrites. The Jews Alter and Change the Law.

"O Messenger (Muhammad )! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: "We believe" with their mouths but their hearts have no faith. And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you. They change the words from their places; they say, "If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!" And whomsoever Allah wants to put in Al-Fitnah [error, because of his rejecting the Faith], you can do nothing for him against Allah. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah does not want to purify (from disbelief and hypocrisy); for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment." (Qur'an 5 : 41)

This verse refers to those who devoted all their capacities and efforts to ensure that the status quo ante of Jahiliyah remained intact, and that the reformative mission of Islam should fail to set right the corruption that had come down to them from the past. Disregarding all moral scruples, these people used the vilest methods against the Prophet (peace be on him). They deliberately suppressed the truth and resorted to lying, deceit, treachery and low cunning in order to frustrate the mission of the Prophet (peace be on him) who was engaged in a tireless struggle actuated by absolute selflessness and benevolence, and who sought the welfare of all human beings, including that of his opponents. All this naturally hurt the Prophet (peace be on him). A sincere person must feel heartbroken when he sees men of low moral character, driven by ignorance, blind selfishness and bigotry, resort to vile methods in opposition to his mission, which is actuated by charity and goodwill towards all men. Hence the purpose of Allah's directive here is not to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) to abstain from this natural feeling of grief but rather that he should not allow such feelings to undermine his morale and that he should persevere in his task. As for the opponents of the Prophet (peace be on him), in view of their low morals, their mean conduct was not at all contrary to expectations.

( ..."We believe" with their mouths but their hearts have no faith...) This has two meanings. First, that since such people are slaves to their desires they cannot have the least interest in the Truth, falsehood alone gratifies them. It is with falsehood alone that they like to fill their ears, for nothing else quenches the thirst of their souls. Second, it is the same love of falsehood which motivates them when they come and spend some time in the company of the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims. They want to distort whatever they see or hear, to taint the facts with their fabrications, and then circulate them among those who have had no contact with the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims in order to scandalize them.

( ...And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you...) This also has two meanings. First, that they socialized with the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims in order to pry into their affairs and communicate them to the enemy. Second, that they went about collecting information to try to slander them. Their objective was to create misgivings about the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims among those who were unacquainted with them.

They deliberately tamper with those injunctions of the Torah that do not accord with their desires, and by altering the meanings of the words occurring in the text they deduce laws that suit their interests.

This refers to the Jews who went about telling the ignorant masses that they should follow the teachings of the Prophet (peace be on him) only if they conformed to the teachings of the Jews.

(they say, "If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!") It was reported that this part of the Ayah was revealed about some Jews who committed murder and who said to each other, "Let us ask Muhammad to judge between us, and if he decides that we pay the Diyah, accept his judgement. If he decides on capital punishment, do not accept his judgement.'' The correct opinion is that this Ayah was revealed about the two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the law they had in their Book from Allah on the matter of punishment for adultery, from stoning to death, to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey. When this incident of adultery occurred after the Hijrah, they said to each other, "Let us go to Muhammad and seek his judgement. If he gives a ruling of flogging, then implement his decision and make it a proof for you with Allah. This way, one of Allah's Prophets will have upheld this ruling amongst you. But if he decides that the punishment should be stoning to death, then do not accept his decision.'' There are several Hadiths mentioning this story. Malik reported that Nafi` said that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Jews came to Allah's Messenger and mentioned that a man and a woman from them committed adultery. Allah's Messenger said to them, What do find of the ruling about stoning in the Tawrah) They said, `We only find that they should be exposed and flogged.' `Abdullah bin Salam said, `You lie. The Tawrah mentions stoning, so bring the Tawrah.' They brought the Tawrah and opened it but one of them hid the verse about stoning with his hand and recited what is before and after that verse. `Abdullah bin Salam said to him, `Remove your hand,' and he removed it, thus uncovering the verse about stoning. So they said, He (`Abdullah bin Salam) has said the truth, O Muhammad! It is the verse about stoning.' The Messenger of Allah decided that the adulterers be stoned to death and his command was carried out. I saw that man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' Al-Bukhari and Muslim also collected this Hadith and this is the wording collected by Al-Bukhari. In another narration by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet said to the Jews, (What would you do in this case) They said, "We would humiliate and expose them.'' The Prophet recited, (Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought a man who was blind in one eye and who was respected among them and said to him, "Read (from the Tawrah).'' So he read until he reached a certain verse and then covered it with his hand. He was told, "Remove your hand,'' and it was the verse about stoning. So that man said, "O Muhammad! This is the verse about stoning, and we had hid its knowledge among us.'' So the Messenger ordered that the two adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. Muslim recorded that a Jewish man and a Jewish woman were brought before Allah's Messenger because they committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah went to the Jews and asked them, (What is the ruling that you find in the Tawrah for adultery) they said, "We expose them, carry them (on donkeys) backwards and parade them in public.'' The Prophet recited; (Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought the Tawrah and read from it until the reader reached the verse about stoning. Then he placed his hand on that verse and read what was before and after it. `Abdullah bin Salam, who was with the Messenger of Allah , said, "Order him to remove his hand,'' and he removed his hand and under it was the verse about stoning. So the Messenger of Allah commanded that the adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "I was among those who stoned them and I saw the man shading the woman from the stones with his body.''

Allah's will to put someone to the test means that Allah confronts one in whom He sees the growth of evil with the opportunities of doing just that, so that he experiences the struggle between good and evil. If the person is not yet fully inclined towards evil, his moral health improves and his latent potentialities for resisting evil are revived. But if he has become excessively inclined towards evil, and goodness has been totally crushed from within his being, then every such test is bound to entangle him still more tightly in evil. The well-wisher is now powerless to rescue him. It might be added that not only individuals but also nations are put to this kind of test.

Allah did not will that their hearts be purified for they themselves did not want them to be purified. It is not Allah's way to deprive of purity those who love it and strive for it; but Allah does not wish to purify those who do not seek their own purification.

Repentance of the Thief is Acceptable

"But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth! He punishes whom He wills and He forgives whom He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things." (Qur'an 5 : 39)

Forgiveness on the part of Allah does not mean that the hand of the thief should not be cut off. It means rather that one who repents and becomes righteous by purging his soul of the sin of stealing will be spared the wrath of God, Who will remove the stain of that sin from him. But if after his hand has been cut off the person concerned does not purge himself of evil intent and continues to nurture the same impure feelings which led to his stealing and thus to the cutting off of his hand, it is evident that even though his hand has been severed from his body, stealing remains ingrained in his soul. The result will be that he will continue to merit God's wrath as he did before his hand was cut off. The Qur'an therefore directs the thief to seek pardon from God and to try to reform himself. For the hand of that thief was cut off for the sake of the judicious administration of human society and the cutting off of a hand did not automatically purify the soul of the person on whom the punishment was carried out. Purity of soul can be achieved only by repentance and turning oneself to God. Traditions mention that after the hand of a thief had been cut off in compliance with the Prophet's order, he was summoned by the Prophet (peace be on him) himself who said to him: 'Say: "I seek pardon from God, and to Him do I turn in repentance.'" The thief uttered these words as directed by the Prophet (peace be on him) who then prayed for the thief, saying: 'O God, accept his repentance.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 8 - Ed.)

Therefore, whoever repents and goes back to Allah after he commits theft, then Allah will forgive him. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said that a woman committed theft during the time of the Messenger of Allah and those from whom she stole brought her and said, "O Allah's Messenger! This woman stole from us.'' Her people said, "We ransom her.'' The Messenger of Allah said,

(Cut off her hand.) They said, "We ransom her with five hundred Dinars.'' The Prophet said,

(Cut off her hand.) Her right hand was cut off and the woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Is there a chance for me to repent'' He said,

(Yes. This day, you are free from your sin just as the day your mother gave birth to you.) Allah sent down the verse in Surat Al-Ma'idah,

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) This woman was from the tribe of Makhzum. Her story was narrated in the Two Sahihs from Az-Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah, The incident caused concern for the Quraysh after she committed the theft during the time of the battle of the Conquest ﴿of Makkah﴾. They said, "Who can talk to Allah's Messenger about her matter'' They then said, "Who dares speak to him about such matters other than Usamah bin Zayd, his loved one.'' When the woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah , Usamah bin Zayd talked to him about her and the face of the Messenger changed color (because of anger) and he said,

(Do you intercede in a punishment prescribed by Allah) Usamah said to him, "Ask Allah to forgive me, O Allah's Messenger!'' During that night, the Messenger of Allah stood up and gave a speech and praised Allah as He deserves to be praised. He then said,

(Those who were before you were destroyed because when an honorable person among them would steal, they would leave him. But, when a weak man among them stole, they implemented the prescribed punishment against him. By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! If Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stole, I will have her hand cut off.) The Prophet commanded that the hand of the woman who stole be cut off, and it was cut off. `A'ishah said, `Her repentance was sincere afterwards, and she got married and she used to come to me so that I convey her needs to the Messenger of Allah.'' This is the wording that Muslim collected, and in another narration by Muslim, `A'ishah said, "She was a woman from Makhzum who used to borrow things and deny that she took them. So the Prophet ordered that her hand be cut off.'' Allah then said,

(Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth!) He owns everything and decides what He wills for it and no one can resist His judgment,

(He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is able to do all things.)

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land:

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 5:33-34)

The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him.

These penalties are mentioned here in brief merely to serve as guidelines to either judges or rulers so they may punish each criminal in accordance with the nature of his crime. The real purpose is to indicate that for any of those who live in the Islamic realm to attempt to overthrow the Islamic order is the worst kind of crime, for which any of the highly severe punishments may be imposed.

If they give up subversion and abandon their endeavour to disrupt or overthrow the righteous order, and their subsequent conduct shows that they have indeed become peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of good character, they need not be subjected to the punishments mentioned here even if any of their former crimes against the state should come to light. If their crime involves violation of the rights of other men they may not be absolved from their guilt. If, for instance, they have either killed a person, seized someone's property or committed any other crime against human life or property they will be tried according to the criminal law of Islam. They will not, however, be accused of either rebellion and high treason or of waging war against God and His Messenger.

Freeing Our Muslim Brothers In Venezuela

Statements Of The Classical Scholars On Freeing Muslim Captives:

The scholars have many positions on this subject, but they are agreed upon it being obligatory to free the Muslim prisoners of war, by either sacrificing ourselves or by our wealth.

Ibn Qudamah Al-Hanbali said (Al-Mughni 9/228):

It is obligatory to pay the ransom money for the Muslim prisoners, if it is possible.

This was also said by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, Imam Malik and Ishaq. It has been narrated from Ibn Zubair that he asked Al-Hassan bin Ali about freeing the prisoners. Al-Hassan replied: â€œIt is obligatory upon the entire Earth on which he was fighting.â€‌

It has been established from the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) that he said: â€œFeed the hungry, visit the sick and free the prisoner.â€‌

It has been narrated by Saeed through his chain from Hibban bin Jabalah, that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: â€œIndeed it is obligatory upon the Muslims to free their captives or to pay their ransoms.â€‌

The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wrote a letter advising the Muhajireen and Ansar: â€œTo restrain the enemy soldiers in their fortresses and to free the Muslim captives with goodness.â€‌

The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) paid the ransom for two Muslim men with a man who he (SAWS) had taken from Bani Uqail, and he paid the ransom for two people with a woman who was given as a gift by Salamah bin Al-Akwa.

These evidences show how the prisoners were freed, not specifying any particular way. However, if we are able to free the prisoners through a particular way then it becomes obligatory upon us do take that course. This is what the jurists did and they said: “It is compulsory upon us to even wage war in order to release the Muslim captives, if we are in a position to wage war.â€‌

Imam An-Nawawi said (Ar-Raudah 10/216):

If the enemy capture a Muslim or two, then is it equivalent to invading a Muslim land? There are two opinions on this. The first opinion is no, because the troubling of one Muslim soldier is insignificant. The more correct and other opinion of the two is yes, because the sanctity of a single Muslim is greater than the sanctity of an entire state. Therefore, if the Islamic State is close to the location where the prisoner was captured, then it should release the prisoner and exact a fine from those who have captured him. (Otherwise, paying the ransom money is wajib (compulsory) if we can free the prisoner by it).

Al-Qurtubi (2/26) said:

Our scholars have said that ransoming the prisoners with money is wajib (obligatory), even if one dirham does not remain in the Islamic Treasury. Ibn Khuwaiz Mindad has confirmed the existence of verses of the Quran that indicate the obligation of releasing the prisoners. It has also been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) that he ransomed the prisoners and ordered others to do so as well. This has also been course taken by the Muslims and their consensus that it is incumbent to free the prisoners by taking money from the Islamic Treasury, and if that is not possible, then it becomes compulsory as a collective duty: if one person executes it, the sin is lifted from the shoulders of the rest of the Muslims.

Related from the author of The Book of Jihad and Fighting in Islamic Politics from the author of As-Seer Al-Kabeer with its commentary (3/1583):

It is OK to exchange both male and female non-Muslim prisoners who are in the hands of the Muslims, for Muslim prisoners. This is the opinion held by Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and it is the strongest opinion held by Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him).

Ibn Juzai Al-Maliki said (Page 172 of Qawaneen Al-Ahkam Ash-Shar’iyyah):

It is necessary to rescue the Muslim prisoners from the hands of the disbelievers by fighting them. If the Muslims are unable to do so, then it becomes compulsory upon them to pay the ransom money. It is incumbent on a rich person to ransom himself and on the Imam (leader), to pay the ransom money for the poor people, from the Islamic Treasury. If they still fall short, then it becomes compulsory to take from the wealth of all the Muslims, even if it finishes their wealth.

Al-Izz bin Abdus-Salam said (Page 97 from Ahkam Al-Jihad wa Fadailihi):

Rescuing the Muslim prisoners from the hands of the disbelievers is one of the best means of coming close to Allah. Some of the scholars have said: “If even one Muslim is captured, it becomes compulsory upon us to persevere in fighting the disbelieving enemy until we either free the Muslim captives or destroy the disbelieving enemy. Therefore, what do you say if they capture a large number of Muslims!?â€‌

Ibn Nuhaas transmits from An-Nawawi in Ar-Raudah (2/838 from Mashari Al-Ashwaq ila Masari’ Al-Ushaq):

If the enemy capture a Muslim or two, then is it equivalent to invading a Muslim land? There are two opinions on this. The first opinion is no, because the troubling of one Muslim soldier is insignificant. The more correct and other opinion of the two is yes, because the sanctity of a single Muslim is greater than the sanctity of an entire state.

Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said (Al-Fatawa 28/635):

Freeing the prisoners is one of the greatest compulsory deeds and spending ransom money and other means towards that, is one of the greatest ways to come close to Allah.

Ibn Al-Arabi said (Ahkam Al-Quran 2/440):

Unless the prisoners are from the weak and oppressed, then the State should be steadfast in their cause. To help them with our bodies is wajib (obligatory) and no one should remain behind until they all leave to rescue them or spend all of their wealth to rescue them. This was said by Imam Malik and all of the scholars. Verily, to Allah we belong and to Him we must return, if we leave our brothers in the hands of the enemy and they have wealth, weapons, number, strength and authority.

Ibn Hajar Al-Haithami said (Tuhfah Al-Muhtaj 9/237) said:

If the enemy captures a single Muslim, it becomes wajib (obligatory) on every one who has the ability, to rush to their rescue (even without seeking anyone’s permission). It is apparent that it is compulsory on everyone, similar to the situation where the enemy invades our land. Moreover, saving our brothers is of a higher priority, as the sanctity of a Muslim is greater (than the sanctity of a State).

Abu Bakr Al-Jassas (Ahkam Al-Quran 1/58) said:

The ransoming of Muslim prisoners is one of the obligatory deeds that has been established upon us. Al-Hajjaj bin Artaah narrated about this ruling from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wrote a letter to the Muhajireen and Ansar, to detain the enemy prisoners in their stronghold, ransom their prisoners for something befitting and for peacemaking amongst the Muslims. Mansoor narrated from Shaqeeq bin Salamah from Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: â€œFeed the hungry, spread the greeting (salam), visit the sick and free the prisoner.â€‌

These two serve as evidences for freeing the prisoners because the word, â€کAl-Aani’ in Arabic refers to prisoner. Imran bin Hussain and Salamah bin Al-Akwa’ narrated that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) ransomed pagans for Muslim prisoners.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said (Fath Al-Bari 6/167):

The saying of Imam Al-Bukhari, â€کThe Chapter on Freeing Prisoners’ refers to freeing them from the hands of the enemy by money or by other means. The word â€کAl-Fakak’, where the fa (Arabic letter) from the word has a fatha (it is also permissible for it to take a kasrah), means to free. This word is mentioned in two hadiths. The first one is the hadith of Abu Musa: â€œFree the prisoner.â€‌ Ibn Battal said that freeing the prisoners is compulsory on a collective duty (Fard Kifayah). This opinion is also held by the majority of the scholars.

Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings.

Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings:

"Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!." (Qur'an 5 : 32 )

Since the same qualities which had been displayed by the wrong doing son of Adam were manifest in the Children of Israel, God strongly urged them not to kill human beings and couched His command in forceful terms. It is a pity that the precious words which embody God's ordinance are to be found nowhere in the Bible today. The Talmud, however, does mention this subject in the following words:

To him who kills a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned as if he had slain the whole race and he who preserves a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned in the Book of God as if he had preserved the whole world. The Talmud also mentions that in trials for murder, the Israelite used to address the witnesses as follows:

Whoever kills one person, merits punishment as if he had slain all the men in the world.

This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others. Whosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind. This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind.

Eight Muslims Including Two Sisters Arrested

I was reliably informed that eight brothers and sisters have been arrested and are being held at both the Arima and La Horquetta Police Station. I called the Arima Police and It was confirmed that 7 brothers and 2 sisters were held on enquiries... I enquired about their status and was told they are being kept in separate cells except the sisters who are being held together in one cell. They were all given dinner.

The exercise was carried out by the La Horquetta Task Force; Sgt. Waldorf. Three of the brothers were taken to La Horquetta and the rest including the sisters are being held in Arima....

I sent a message to both the top CoP and Minister Gary Griffith to Please ensure that justice and fairness is observed in this matter and that full respect be given to these brothers and sisters... Especially the Sisters and to recognize that this is the holy month of Ramadaan and that the Eid celebrations is just next week and that considerations must be given to their religious rights; as regards the prayer and the fast...

An Attorney-at-Law will be looking into the matter. Insha Allah...

Umar Abdullah
Head of Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front)
Tel: 1 (868) 365-6253/787-0765

Eight Muslims Including Two Sisters Arrested

I was reliably informed that eight brothers and sisters have been arrested and are being held at both the Arima and La Horquetta Police Station. I called the Arima Police and It was confirmed that 7 brothers and 2 sisters were held on enquiries... I enquired about their status and was told they are being kept in separate cells except the sisters who are being held together in one cell. They were all given dinner.

The exercise was carried out by the La Horquetta Task Force; Sgt. Waldorf. Three of the brothers were taken to La Horquetta and the rest including the sisters are being held in Arima....

I sent a message to both the top CoP and Minister Gary Griffith to Please ensure that justice and fairness is observed in this matter and that full respect be given to these brothers and sisters... Especially the Sisters and to recognize that this is the holy month of Ramadaan and that the Eid celebrations is just next week and that considerations must be given to their religious rights; as regards the prayer and the fast...

An Attorney-at-Law will be looking into the matter. Insha Allah...

Umar Abdullah
Head of Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front)
Tel: 1 (868) 365-6253/787-0765

Be Warned Do Not Attend These Protests!!!

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A MASSIVE MARCH IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE THIS FRIDAY 25th at 2PM in PORT OF SPAIN!!!!!

The Committee of Major Scholars issued a fatwa regarding the unlawfulness of demonstrations (and Protests) due to them being causes of corruption, there are those who would say that demonstrations are of two types: A type in which there is no looting and no mixing between sexes and  merely to demand the rights of the people and that is permissible but when they comprise corruption, damage and looting then they are haraam (unlawful). So what did Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzaan say regarding this?

Here is what he had to say:

"Ask them, is there are any basis for demonstrations (and Protests)? Is there a basis for them amongst Muslims, whether in the past or in recent (times)? Demonstrations (and Protests) were not known except from the West, from the West. They are not from Islam at all. Islam encourages disciplinary (order), it encourages with peace (serenity) it encourages absence of chaos. Rights are not attained through chaos and screams. They are attained through legislated ways and through ways other than the way of demonstrations(and Protests) . No one is prevented from raising a complaint, no one is prevented from seeking a right of his, no one is prevented from that. As for demonstrations then they are not from the deen of Islaam! And I say and I will repeat it again [with raised voice] they are not from the deen of Islaam! And nor from the manners of the Muslims! Rather, they have come to us through Western schemings in order to tear apart the (united) jamaa'ah and to split the people and bring about enmity."

Be warned do not attend these protests!!!

Halalywood???

American Sharia Movie Trailer: http://youtu.be/vQuVb5U-mFk
Halalywood!!! Who is Omar Regan??? Muslims must be warned!!! Is this what Islam has been reduced to??? A BIG JOKE!!! So according to western propaganda we have made people cry, scared the life out of people, oppressed women, terrorized people and now we are entertaining and making people laugh... What's next??? Oh you who believe... When are we going to become leaders amongst mankind? When are we going to start working to establish ourselves firm in the land and to pronounce the name of Allah supreme??? When are we going to return to the Qur'an and the Sunnah??? My dear brothers and sisters it's about time we get serious!!! Those of you who interested please contact me @ 1 (867) 365-6253/787-0765, email me @ waajihatulislaamiyyah@Gmail.com or message me... Insha Allah...

Media Release

Media Release:

Re: Newsday Article; 'Venezuelans - TT Prisoner Swap.

Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) is deeply concerned over what appears to be a brutal and nasty game of political corruption at it's highest level. Referring to an article that appeared in today's Newsday entitled 'Venezuelans - TT Prisoner Swap?'.

Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front) is calling on the government of Trinidad and Tobago to come clean with respect to these allegations.

Our nationals are not even criminals! They have not yet been charged and further to this has no prior convictions nor criminal records; they are not prisoners they were simply detained and still are; today being a total of 103 days.

In considering the responses of the Foreign Minister; Hon. Winston Dookaran, National Security Minister; Hon. Gary Griffith and Trinidad and Tobago Ambassador in Caracas Mr. Odell Barman it is absolutely clear these allegations are proving to be true. What other reasons could there be? In light of the fact that no evidence has since been brought against these men.

Not Withstanding the damning information provided by Rear Admiral Kelshal we have information that on the 45th day of the detention another bit of damning information was sent to the Venezuelan Authorities indicating that the men had prior terrorism convictions, it was at this time upon request we provided Certificates of Character and recommendations for all five nationals; again proving the Trinidad and Tobago government wrong...

When other countries; America and Canada were getting their citizens out of Venezuela on the 45th day, the Trinidad and Tobago government were further trying to sink our nationals.

A letter was already sent to the Prime Minister asking her intervention, therefore we are  again calling on the government of Trinidad and Tobago in particular the Prime Minister; Hon. Kamla Persad Bissessar  to provide full disclosure of all attempts made thus far in the release of or rather the implicating of our nationals there in Venezuela and to answer two very simple question; do you care? and if you do, what do you intend to do about it?

For Immediate Release:
3rd July 2014

Umar Abdullah
Head of Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front)
Tel: 1 (868) 365-6253/787-0765

Media Release: Trinidad and Tobago Muslims Detained in Venezuela

Attention!!!

Media Release:

Re: Detained Nationals in Venezuela

This is a Black Flag Alert!!!

Our brothers/husbands/sons was again denied their day in court yesterday; another case of 'Justice Delayed, Justice Denied'... The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry has forced another postponement in the release of our nationals to the 29th of July 2014... Reasons given to the lawyer; Jose was that the translator didn't come and also that the detention center was not notified to take the men to court... All this, even though we were given a 99% assurances by the lawyers that they would have been released yesterday.

Our Ambassador in Venezuela was contacted who informed us that he was unaware of this and that he was attending a funeral after which he will contact the lawyers. He however asked that we inform him of any further developments; what is the role and function of our Embassy? Aren't they the ones who ought to inform us? Subsequently the Minister of National Security was contacted who also asked what can he do to help...

It must be kept in mind a diplomatic note was sent from our foreign ministry to the Venezuelan foreign ministry last week and an acknowledgement of receipt was forwarded to our Embassy and the lawyers.

It is quite clear these people just don't care...

I want to remind all those who are reading this, even though this Holy Month of Ramadaan is very virtuous and holds within it tremendous blessings; it is not a sacred month... The greatest battle in Islamic history was fought in this month... And the believers won...

Our next move will be decisive, effective and will leave a permanent impression in the minds of all those responsible...

For immediate release:
Date: 1st July 2014

Umar Abdullah
Head of Waajihatul Islaamiyyah (The Islamic Front)
Tel: 1 (868) 365-6253/787-0765