Saturday, May 27, 2006

Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic State?

In response to the question you raised about whether Saudi Arabia is an Islamic State (Dar al Islam) or not, we need to first define the meaning of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr (Land of Kufr) and then look to whether Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country today matches this definition.

The following article explains this subject in detail together with the evidences, please check it: Clarfiying the meaning of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr

1) According to Shariah terminology, Dar al-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.

So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security. So if its laws are Islamic and its security is maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Islam. When its laws are the laws of Kufr (disbelief) and its security is not maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Kufr. These definitions have been derived from the Islamic evidences and discussed by the Ulema (scholars) in history.

2) When we look to Saudi Arabia it fundamentally contradicts Islam in a Qati (definitive) manner in many areas such as:

- Being part of the United Nations - every member of which has to agree with international law set by the UN. This puts the law of man above the law of Allah.
- Allying with the Kuffar against the Muslims. Saudi Arabia allowed America to use it to attack the Muslims of Iraq in the Gulf wars. America also has a military base in Saudi which is well known.
- Accepting the legitimacy of the different countries in the Muslim world this is clear by the fact they are part of the OIC and Muslim League and have ambassadors in these different countries. This is definitively prohibited from different ahadith and the Ijma of the Sahaba:

The Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by Sa'id al-Khudri)

The Prophet (saw) also said: "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by 'Arfajah)

3) Just because Saudi Arabia may implement part of Islamic laws such as in the judiciary, it doesn’t mean that it is an Islamic state or Khilafah

"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

"Then it is only a part of the Book that you believe in and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who believe like this but disgrace in this life and on the day of judgement they shall be consigned to the most grievest chastisement." [Al-Baqarah: 85]

4) We cannot compare Saudi Arabia and say it is similar to the Khilafah after the Khulafah ar-Rashideen. As in those periods it is unanimously accepted by the Sunni Ulema in history that they were Khilafah and Dar al Islam, some of them misapplied some of the Islamic rules but they never implemented open kufr. There is a difference between the mis-implementation of some of the Shariah rules and the non-implementation as we see in Saudi Arabia.

Some of the Khulafah were better than others and some of them were even oppressive, nevertheless the system of Islam remained implemented. Even though some of the rulers misapplied some rules and were oppressive, the Prophet (saw) foretold of this and instructed the Muslims to accept them as Khulafah and obey them as long as they did not implement open Kufr (Kufr bu’ah). Some of these ahadith are:

Muslim reported that Salama b. Yazid Al-Ja‘afi asked the Messenger of Allah (saw): "O Prophet of Allah, if we were to be ruled by Ameers who ask us for their dues and deny us our dues, what do you order us to do then?" The Messenger of Allah(saw) turned his face away; he asked him again and Allah’s Messenger (saw) avoided him; then he asked for the second or the third time and he (saw) was pulled by Al-Ash‘aath b. Qays, so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Hear and obey, for they shall be accountable for their actions and you shall be accountable for yours."

Muslim reported from ‘Auf b. Malik who reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:"The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and you pray for them and they pray for you; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." We asked: "O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?" He (saw) said: "No! As long as they establish prayer among you. Behold if anyone was ruled by a Wali and saw him committing a sin, let him hate the sin committed against Allah, but let him not withdraw his hand from obedience."

Muslim narrated from Huzayfah b. al-Yamaan that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "There will be Imams after me who will not be guided by my guidance, nor will they act according to my Sunnah; some men will rise amongst you with satans’ hearts in human bodies." Huzayfah asked: "What shall I do, if I were to reach that time?" He (saw) said: "You should hear and obey the Ameer even if he whipped your back and took your money; do hear and obey."

Ahmad and Abu Dawood reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "O Abu Dharr, what would you do if some Walis possessed the booty and deprived you of it?" He said: "By He Who sent you with the Truth, I would raise my sword and fight until I join you." Upon this he (saw) said: "Let me tell you something that would be better for you than that. Remain patient and bear it until you join me."

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr upon which we had a proof from Allah. And it was also narrated by Tabarani. He said: “Unless you see open Kufr.”

The Khulafah ruled by Islam and did not implement Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) that is why we find the great scholars of Islam such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Jafar as-Sadiq and the like accepted that they were Khalif’s but accounted them. In fact the two most famous students of Abu Hanifah who recorded his Fiqh, most of us in India follow the Fiqh they recorded - Qadi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad As-Shaybani were appointed as Qadi al Quda (the chief judge) in state in the time of the Khalifah Haroon ar-Rasheed.

Some of the great scholars wrote books about the history of the Khulafah such as Imam Suyuti known as al-Jalalayn, who died in 1505 CE – he wrote the book Tarikh al Khulafah, ‘History of the Khulafah’. Imam Mawardi who died in 1058 CE who was appointed as a Qadi and later an ambassador by the Abbasid Khalid Al-Qaim bi Amr Allah wrote the famous book, ‘Al Ahkam As-Sultaniya’, about the ruling system in Islam.

Whereas today all the countries in the Muslim world including Saudi Arabia implement Kufr Bu'ah in many areas such as those mentioned earlier.

7 comments:

Abdul Rahman Hilmi said...

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

may Allah curse them! Kuwait is even worse as far as I'm hearing. I was told that over there they've even supported the publishing of a new type of Quraan they are calling "al-furqaan"! The government even supports this feminist who is saying that Islam misstreats women! Subhaan Allah, if what I hear is false then may Allah correct me. But if these things were true then...subhaan Allah on where this ummah has reached!

Great work with the blog by the way. Barakallahu feek.

assalamu alaikum

Abdul Rahman Hilmi said...

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

may Allah curse them! Kuwait is even worse as far as I'm hearing. I was told that over there they've even supported the publishing of a new type of Quraan they are calling "al-furqaan"! The government even supports this feminist who is saying that Islam misstreats women! Subhaan Allah, if what I hear is false then may Allah correct me. But if these things were true then...subhaan Allah on where this ummah has reached!

Great work with the blog by the way. Barakallahu feek.

assalamu alaikum

Anonymous said...

interesting peice but you have made several mistakes:

1. there is ikhtilaf on the definition of dar ul-uslam so you can not use your criterion to reject the position of the the ulema that recognise it as ddar ul-islam as the main aspects of Islam are present therein - see the writings of the great ulema in this regard like Imam mawardi and ibn uthaymin of recent times emapining that if the the main aspects of islam are established it is dar ul-islam

2. allying with teh kuffar is ikhtilafi read the ealborate fatawa on teh issue - the mian point here is teh evidence in any case is not qati - so can not be declared kufr even if very week as the mufti'oon have given fatwa just as the uthmani mufti'oon gave fatawa about the rule they executed - which most reject actually as kufr!!

3. one khalifah is well known to be disputed and teh evidenece of the khba is not qati in dalala nor in matn - it is ahkbar ahad wa fihi tawil and tehre is no reported ijma - especially of the shabah as we know that they suggested two leaders and tehy rebutted by each other - see Juwani's ghiyath and shawkani's sayl uljara and sanani, subul al-salam and ibn taymia's siyasat ush-shariah.

the issue is not teh strength or weakness if these positions as they are mukhtalaf - the issue ais that you have snot in any substantuiated a kufr contradiction of the qatiyaat. Even your own definitions dissagree with you - you quoted shawkani's sayl ul-jarar he does not even say what you said rather he says the right of making commabnds i.e. the rule is the hands of the muslims and the can practice their deen and the non-muslims (kuffar) are not dominant with their kufr. the text of al-azhar which is commenting on actually states as lng as teh muslims can practice their deen and state the shahadatayn and are secure in their islam this is dar ul-islam - you may well dissagree but you can not declare it kufr as there is ikhtilaf on this issue - ulness you are saying these ulema are upon kufr and as they are not jahil they are kafir? hence your claim - at least in this article is not substantiated at all. I await your response and your correction or acceptence of what i have said

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

1) Regardless of the ikhtilaf on the definition of Dar al-Islam (I have actually included some of the definitions of the scholars including those who differ somewhat like the Hanafi school) - Everyone agrees that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a Qat'i prohibition which Saudi Arabia does. Of course scholars do disagree whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq/Dhalim.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or Ameer or shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Ash-Shawkani said in one of his essays:

a) That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.
b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.
c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Therefore differences on terminology is only semantics in reality - it is completely prohibitted to rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed.

2) Allying with the Kuffar against the believers is definitively prohibitted - it has been explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah. The fatwa of any scholar cannot overturn a definitive matter. I can post the evidences, quotes, etc about this later if required. Please don't reply with misquotes of the scholars talking about circumstances which are different like non-Muslim individuals, etc or situations which don't address the issue of allying with enemies of Islam against other Muslims.

Please be careful in justifying the crimes of the rulers by misconstruing issues. I agree that it possible for there to be difference of opinion whether the Uthmani Khalifah ceased to be a Khilafah in the latter part of the 1800's when they adopted Kufr laws. There is a difference of opinion on this matter due to the ahadith about 'Kufr Bu'ah (open)' and 'Kufr Sareeh (clear)' - scholars differ as if they adopted it out of ignorance would it fit within the definition of open or clear kufr.

This does not mean in any way that it is acceptable for rulers to rule by kufr today just because some Mufti's legitimise it. As mentioned earlier - ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a definitive matter which is indisputable.

Awf b. Malik al-Ashja'i narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden.” [Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id, Part 1/ the Book of Knowledge]

3) You conveniently did not address the issue of being part of the United Nations and accepting the sovereignty of International Law above the law of Allah (swt).

4) Regarding the issue of having one Khalifah. There are ahkam which are from authentic texts which are definitive in meaning and if rejected makes someone a fasiq and not a kafir. Please don't try to blur the line between halal and haram, just because something is not Qat'i thuboot (definitive by transmission) and Qat'i dalalah (definitive by meaning) - doesn't mean that issue automatically becomes ikhtilafi.

There are many ahadith which are clear in meaning regarding this:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". [Muslim]

Abdullah b. ‘Amru b. al-‘A'as said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, he should obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of the latter". [Muslim]

Afrajah said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." [Muslim]

Muslim reported that Abu Hazim said: I accompanied Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him talking about the Messenger of Allah (saw), he said: "The children of Israel have been governed by Prophets; whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him; but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many (in one time); they asked: What then do you order us? He (saw) said: Fulfil allegiance to them, the first of them, the first of them, and give them their dues; for verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with". [Muslim]

It is true that it is narrated that Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir (ra) said when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (saw) (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa'ida:

"Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen)".

But have you forgotten what Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got up and addressed the Muslims. [‘As-Sira’ of Ibnu Kathir, ‘Tarikh ut-Tabari’ by at-Tabari, ‘Siratu Ibn Hisham’ by Ibn Hisham, ‘As-Sunan ul-Kubra’ of Bayhaqi, ‘Al-fasil-fil Milal’ by Ibnu Hazim and "Al-A'kd Al-Farid" of Al-Waqidi]

It has additionally been reported in "as-Sirah" of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Thaqifa: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida'a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one's interests".

Please don't misquote the scholars in scenarios which they discussed which is not the reality today. I know some of them mentioned like Ibn Taymiyyah that if there were two khulafah in different parts of the world and they did not know of each other then both would be legitimate until they found out then one would have to step down. This was a possibility at that time but not today.

Imam Al-Mawardi said, "It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imams (leaders) at the same time." [‘Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah’, p. 9]

Al-Imam Al Qalqashandi in his book Subul Al-Asha, volume 9, page 277 says, "It is forbidden to appoint two Imams at the same time".

Al-Imam Al-Sha'rani in his book Al-Mizan, volume 2, page 157 says: " It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord."

Al-Imam Al-Qadi Abdul-Jabbar in his book Al-Mughni fi abwab Al-Tawheed, volume 20, page 243, says: "It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one."

The great Shafi’ scholar Imam An-Nawawi said: "It is forbidden to give an oath to two Imams or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart". ["Mughni Al-Muhtaj", volume 4, p. 132, An-Nawawi]

He also stated in his book, "Sharhu Sahih Muslim" (explanation of Sahih Muslim), "If a baya'a were taken for two Khalifahs one after the other, the baya'a of the first one would be valid and it should be fulfilled and honoured whereas the baya'a of the second would be invalid, and it would be forbidden to honour it. This is the right opinion which the majority of scholars follow, and they agree that it would be forbidden to appoint two Khalifah's at one given time, no matter how great and extended the Islamic lands become". [‘Sharhu Sahih Muslim’, chapter 12 p. 231, An-Nawawi]

Imam Ibnu Hazm said, "It is unlawful to have more than one Imam in the whole of the world". [‘Al-Muhalla’, volume 4, p. 360, Ibnu Hazm]

Imam Al-Juzairi, an expert on the Fiqh of the four Sunni schools of thought said regarding the opinion of the four Imams, “...It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord." [‘Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a’ (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), volume 5, p. 416, al-Juzairi]

أبو مبارك said...

Alhamdulillah, brothers are leaving the blind following of some of these groups and starting to realize that we have some good scholars and some very bad ones. It is our individual job to remain diligent, with sincerity, to keep our scholars and leaders on the right path and not just accept whatever is said, just because they say it.

One of the greatest fitnahs we are to face is wayward scholars. So we have countries that have armies that are not designed to protect the muslims, but to protect the leaders and the wishes of the zionists and crusaders. We have leaders who have sold out their deen and the welfare of this ummah for their personal gain. We have governments that are not only unislamic, but designed to destroy the very fabric of islam, and we have scholars that are working for the enemies of islam.

Alhamdulillah, the more we have people like tantawi, the more they are waking up the muslims. The more we have kafirs like bush, they are uniting the muslims.

Anonymous said...

Salam,
The poster whop refuted the claims that Saudi is dar al kufr etc is a clear Saudi product...extremely confused....full of doubt. Regardless of terminology the state is under the control of the enemies of Islam...therefor it must be replaced by an Islamic government. Saudi schooling is producing students without any conviction and those who are exiting from Saudi institutes are left confused about the realities of the Muslim lands and it's situation. They know many book titles and have become well versed in creating doubts about realities of the Muslim world.

My advise to this young intellectual is read the history books...inshallah you will come to realise the truth about the saudi regime and the regimes which currently occupy the seats of poer in the muslim lands.

The muslim must strive through dawah and jihad to free all the muslim lands of the influence and leadership of disbelivers and there agents.

I hope we all agree on this point and strive to bring about a united ummah...one whose laws are shariah and soldiers are loyal to Islam and the Muslim cause.

Indeed the arguments and cloudy speech will not deter us from waging jihad against the infidels and there allies.

Anonymous said...

As Salaam aleikum,

The Qur'anic reference given above says 4:49 which should have actually said 5:49. This could be a print error but the same has been repeated in another website (universal-islam.com).

Please do correct the same.

JazakAllah Khair!