A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims - MyKhilafah.com

30 u A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims
and abstaining from causing harm to others unlawfully. As an example
for that is when a farmer negligently allows his cattle to graze on the
crops of his neighbour; and the unsubstantiated profiteering that
prevents a person from benefiting on the account of another person,
such as building a house on others' property, or paying a debt that does
not exist, i.e. the futile work. All of this disagree with the Theory of
Liability and indicate its invalidity. These issues and matters do restrict
and contradict the right in personam and destroy it, in the sense that it
is an absolute or unrestricted right. However, according to the Capitalist
viewpoint, liability as already described, is established upon a legal bond
between the creditor and the debtor that obliges the individual to transfer
or carry a right. This meant the absence of stipulating the acceptance of
the bill of exchange or promissory. In other words, it initiates a
promissory without the acceptance of the individual involved in the
transfer. It also means there is no stipulation that the creditor accepts the
transference of the debt, because the legal implication is that the person
is obliged to transfer the right as an asset or liability, a matter which
would not guarantee fairness and equity. Simply informing the person on
whom the liability has been transferred is not sufficient, it is necessary
that he accepts it, because the contract in the bill of exchange is valid
only if all signatories to the contract accept it.
This is a summary of the renewed problems faced by the Theory of
Liability; from which it can be seen that this theory cannot be a basis for
thought. There are many different relationships between people that
cannot be deduced on the basis of this theory, like the fact that any
fraud would invalidate the contract. It also has no scope for
generalisation, because responsibility for assumed errors such as injury
incurred from use of machinery at work, bill of exchange, or the benefit
of other parties such as insurance taken for the benefit of as yet unborn
children, the individual will, such as the charitable endowment, even the
Capitalist share company, and the similar contracts and transactions;
none of these are included in the Theory of Liability neither in its
wording or meaning. The theory is also unsuitable for many general
rules such as fraud in contracts, or not spending on what disagrees with
morals and public order. It does not have the capacity to unify the
different peoples and cultures in single legislation, as evidenced by its
inadequacy when the theories of Socialism emerged and the industrial
revolution happened. It is also wrong from its basis, because it is built on
A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims u 31
the twin concepts of personal freedom and the freedom of ownership;
and these two freedoms cause corruption amongst the people, and
facilitate exploitation and imperialism. This is because the law, which
protects granting these two freedoms, was built on the Theory of
Liability, a matter that causes corruption and suffering.
This is the reality of the Western legislation that challenged the Islamic
legislation. In other words, this is the reality of the Capitalist system
that challenged the Islamic system. As for the Islamic legislation attacked
and severely criticised by the Western legislation, it is not built upon
speculative theories from which rules and solutions emanate, as it is the
case with the Western legislation. Rather, it emanates from a definite
creed that is not open to doubt. Its origin is not a theory of right, nor
it emanates from the right in personam and the right in rem. Rather, its
origin is a decisive ‘Aqeedah (creed) that is reached by the mind and
definitely believed in. Thus, whatever emanates from this creed is an
Islamic legislation and whatever does not emanate from it is not Islamic
legislation. So which of these is the correct legislation Is it the
legislation that originates from a rational creed that is not open to any
doubt, or the legislation derived from speculative theories, particularly
when errors began to appear in these theories, as they were faced with
new events, beside the fact that their definition proved its disagreement
with the truth and reality
The Islamic legislation emanates from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah, i.e. from
the belief in Allah , His Angels, His Books, Messengers, and the Last
Day. In other words, it emanates from the Book and the Sunnah, which
have been decisively proven through rational thought as revelation from
Allah . Whatever has been understood from the revelation in terms of
evidences, principles and rules constitutes Islamic legislation. Therefore
when Islamic legislation is studied or when Islam is studied as such, it is
studied on the basis that it is revelation from Allah and not the
product of human beings. This is the basis in the issue of studying Islam
and the basis of the viewpoint towards Islam. Therefore the decisive
rational proof must be established that Islam is revelation from Allah ,
then the legislation is adopted from what has come in the revelation i.e.
from that which has been established by the decisive rational proof that
Allah has revealed as a system for mankind. Islam has been revealed
by Allah , for it is what has been brought by the Qur'an and by the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39