Saturday, July 28, 2007

Is Saudi Arabia a State of Islam or Kufr ?

The following article was written some years ago but is still useful.

Every Muslim must know whether his/her Deen is implemented in any country. This is due to the fact that Muslims must pledge allegiance to the country that rules by the Deen of Allah (swt). In other words, that state would be the Khilafah State that is headed by the Khaleefah whom Islam obligated us to obey. Therefore, this presentation is not hypothetical, nor for pure academic reasons. In other words, the Muslims must know if king Fahd is the Khaleefah of the Muslims, and whether Saudi is the Islamic State. If we conclude that Saudi is the Islamic State, then the obligation of re-establishing the Islamic state is removed (and the Islamic movements are actually wasting their time working for a goal that is already achieve).

Muslims perception

Many Muslims view Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic state. This is due to the lack of criterion to
determine whether a state is Islamic or not. It is also due to the lack of knowledge of the reality of the situation in that country because of the facade that is put by this state. After all, every year Saudi donates millions of copies of the honorable Qur’an, Islamic books, and a lot of money to build Masajid etc. all over the world. As a result people believe it to be Islamic. Therefore,
Muslims must know its reality.

The Criterion for a state to be Islamic

For a state to be Islamic, it must base its constitution, laws, structure, foreign relations, as well as solve its problems on the basis of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah. If a state does not rule by Islamic laws or imports rule from a non-Islamic basis in any sphere of its affairs, it is not Islamic i.e. Kufr state.

Now based on this criterion, let us examine Saudi.

Saudi and Man-Made Laws

Saudi rules by a mix of laws, some of which are Islamic and some are man-made. However, to maintain the Islamic perception, it refrains from calling them laws. Saudi uses specific terminologies to differentiate between the Islamic laws and the man-made ones. In an Arabic book titled “The Constitutional Laws of the Arab Countries” under the subtitle “The Constitution of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the author states, “The words ‘law (anoon)’ and ‘Legislation (Tashree’)’ are only used in Saudi to refer to the rules taken from the Islamic Shari‘ah ..... As for the man-made such as systems (Anthimah)’ or ‘ instructions (Ta’leemaat)’ or ‘ edict (Awamir)’......” In an Arabic book titled Al-Wajeez fi Tareekh Al-Qawneen (The Compact in the History of Cannons) by Dr. Mahmood Al-Maghribi, p443, after mentioning that legislation in the past was Islamic and simple, he complements Saudi by saying, “this situation has changed after the rise of the Saudi State and the natural resources. This new situation required reforms and changes ... Due to these changes, there was a need for new laws. As a result, laws were formulated in the following areas; Laws in the basis of court systems, trade, penal code, labour, Taxation, among others ..”

Regarding Trade laws, he stated “The trade laws, land and sea, which are known as ‘The Trade System’ are considered one of the most important Saudi trade laws. This law was issued in 1931
and is similar to the modern trade laws, be they Arab or European.” With regard to the Islamic
penal code, he said they are implemented (of course), “with some alterations required by the public interest.” He also added, “ Public interest also required making taxation revenue laws or the state...”

The author is actually telling us that Saudi has been implementing non-Islamic laws in trade, “similar to the modern trade laws.” He also tells us that Al-Saud have altered the Deen of Allah (swt) by changing some of his laws due to “public interest”.

In actuality, there are many man-made laws which the author did not mention such as:

• The system of observing banks issued by the king’s edict #M/5 in 1386 AH.
• The system of the Saudi Arab citizenship decided by the ministers Council resolution #4 on 25th January 1974 and approved by the king in his speech in High Council #8/5/8604 on 22nd February 1974 to put it in effect.
• The system of printed material and publication issued by the king’s edict #M/17 in 13/4/1402 AH.
•The law of reviving the dead land used to be according to Islam, where if a person works a piece of land that becomes his. This was the case until an edict was issued declaring the nullification of this Islamic law starting from 1987 onwards.
• The system of marrying non-Saudi woman.
• The general rule for taxes, approved by the king’s edict #M/9, on 4/6/1395 AH.

Shar’i And Civil Courts

In Saudi , as in other states, in addition to Shari’ah courts, there are civil courts or courts that rule by man-made laws. As stated earlier , they do not call them civil courts, so as not to shock the Muslims there or embarrass their scholars, who are the biggest pillars of the state. In Saudi, manmade laws are introduced through legal forums councils and committee, such as Dewan of
Mathalim (council of injustices). These forums are equal to civil courts in other countries.

Scholars of Saudi refer to the civil courts in other countries as Kufr, but dare not say the same about these councils. These legal forums address issues that are not part of Shari‘ah, such as cases of Riba, forgery, bribes, etc. These councils are composed of Sheikhs and lawyers, from colleges such as the Sorbonne, who pass verdicts according to certain articles and edicts which are not Islamic.

For example, military courts are placed under a special Dewan called Dewan of Military Courts. In it, Saudi uses man-made laws called “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” issued on 11/11/1366 AH. This system is a combination of Shari’i and non-Shari’i law which are exclusive to military personnel. An example of a Shar’i rule is that of Hirabah, killing anyone who tries to overthrow the regime. In reality, this law was introduced as a measure to deter Islamic activists and especially the army from attempting to remove the entity of Al-Saud and replace it with the Islamic one. As for the punishment for theft, which they claim is subject to Islam, it is not implemented. It is known that the Islamic punishment for theft is cutting off the hand, whether the thief is a civilian, soldier or the Khaleefah himself. In “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” chapter 8 article no.12 states, “The officers and the soldiers who steal something that belongs to other officers and soldiers or their moneys, and the item is consumable, then the thief is to pay its value, if consumed, and be imprisoned for a period ranging from a month and a half to three months...” Furthermore, if an officer commits theft and wants to repent and get punished according to article 20 and 22 from chapter 3 of the same system that places some crimes under the authority of the Shar’i courts and others under the “Council of trials”.

We ask the scholars and the supporters of this British-made, American maintained state: Are the laws of Islam applicable to some people and inapplicable to others? What is the rule of Islam
regarding legislating a punishment other than what Allah has revealed?

Saudi takes and gives Riba whoever takes a stroll near the Haram will see the British-Saudi Bank, American-Saudi Bank, Arab-National Bank, the Cairo-Saudi Bank etc. These banks with their Riba transactions are allowed to operate in accordance to Section B, article 1 of the Saudi law, issued by the king’s edict no.M/5 in 1386 AH. It is well known that any case dealing with Riba and banks is automatically transferred to the monetary establishment where it is handled by specific committees. Cases of such nature do not go to Shar’i courts. Prior to this law, whenever a person borrowed money from a bank or an establishment and was late in paying it back, and got charged interest, he would go to a Shar’i court judge, who would nullify the interest. This led to a conflict.

On the one land they needed the Shar’i courts, at least to keep up the farce, and at the same time they needed their banks. To resolve this conflict, Shar’i courts were prohibited from interfering in such cases under the “Specialisation” law (articles 20 and 21 from chapter 3 of the System of Saudi Arab Army).

Saudi and its Riba based relations with GCC (Gulf Cooperation council) Article 22 of the Unified Economic Agreement stated, “The member states coordinate their financial monetary banking and increase cooperation among monetary establishments and the central bank ...” Its clear that deal with interest since banks and monetary establishments are based on Riba.

Saudi and the AMF (Arab Monetary Fund)

The Arab Monetary Fund, based in Abu Dhabi, is a huge Riba institution that was established by an agreement on 4/7/76 in Morocco. Saudi is the biggest share holder in it; it receives, as every one else in the Fund, Riba of an average of 3.2% on its shares.

Saudi and IMF (International Monetary Fund)

It is worth mentioning that Saudi has the 6th largest share and power of rate. It had 3.5% of the
total shares which enabled it to occupy a permanent seat in the executive board.

So we ask: How can a state that is involved in Riba as a set policy be Islamic? Maybe because it
donates copies of Qur’an and the Al-Saud ‘scholars’ say so!!

Saudi and External relations: The International Court of Justice

It is well known that Saudi is a member of the UN. According to article 92 of the UN constitution, the International court of Justice (ICJ) is the main Judicial branch of the UN. The ICJ performs its duties based on a system that is part of the UN constitution and must be respected and approved by every member state. Article 94 states “Every member of the UN is to submit to the ICJ in any case in which he is a part.”

Is the International Law taken from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His messenger
(saw)? What is Saudi submitting to? The UN, which was created to counter Islam, or Islam?
Saudi is not merely a member of the UN. It is a pioneer in supporting the UN. Some even go the
extent of saying that it was one of the founding members. In a speech given by the then foreign
minister, prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, in 1945 in the San Francisco conference, he said: “...Let us
abide by the principles which we wrote here on paper... and let this constitution be the basis on
which we will build our new and better world.”

Saudi and UNESCO

The UNESCO was formed in 1946 Saudi showed great interest in this organisation, lending it $4.6 million , interest free,and donating $50,00 in support of its projects. This organisation is designed to spread the Western ideas as well as distorting Islam. For example, in the Encyclopedia on the History of the Human Race and its Scientific Development, issued by this organisation, in volume 3 chapter 10 it states:

1. Islam is a fabricated religion that is composed of Judaism, Christianity and Arabian Polytheism .
2. Qur’an is a book that has no tolerance to others.
3. The Prophet’s traditions where made up by some people, a long time after the prophet, and
attributed to him.
4. Muslim Jurists put down their jurisprudence based on the Roman, Persian and Church laws as well as the Old Testament...”

As a matter of fact, Tala Noor Attar, complemented Saudi in his book, “Saudi and the UN”, saying that it donated to the UNESCO $17,040,000.

Is it that the government of Saudi is illiterate and never heard of what the UNESCO writes about the Deen they are supposedly propagating, or is it this is exactly what they donating for?!

Saudi and the Arab League

Saudi is not only a member of this nationalistic organisation, but it is one of the founders. Article 8 of the Arab League Constitution states, “Every participating member of the League must respect the established ruling system of the other participating states in the League, it should consider it as a right of these states and obligate it self not to do any action that is aimed at changing their systems.”

Assuming that Saudi is Islamic, is it permissible for it to recognise the Kufr, support it and promise not to change it? So the Baathi regime of Iraq and Alawyite in Syria should be respected!? And we have not mentioned the rule for nationalism which Saudi is propagating, for we think it is well known.


Some claim that Saudi takes its stand without free will and under pressure. This may be said about a specific incident that occurred or a statement that it made, but no one can say this when the above mentioned set a basis of its policies since its establishment by the British. At any rate, King Fahd declares otherwise, “Every citizen should hold his head high, for his country in any way. We base our friendly relations with other countries based on our mutual benefits in a way that dose not permit any foreign country to have a hold in the Saudi Arab kingdom.” [Thursday 8th of Safar 1405 AH]

It is clear, therefore, that Islam is not implemented in Saudi. Consequently, the work to resume the Islamic way of life via the re-establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation upon Muslims.


Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

To the brother/sister asked a question regarding the end period of the Uthmani Khilafah. Please refer to the following article which explains this:

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

Without repeating myself. Regarding the difference between the Uthmani Khilafah and Saudi Arabia:

a) It is a very weak argument - to argue based on your assumption of someone else’s view. Instead of arguing based upon the evidences and presenting your argument. Or is it those who believe that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state don't have a real argument based on evidences. How can you justify the Saudi rule when they aided America to spill the blood of the Muslims of Iraq and have American troops stationed in the land of the haramayn? How can you justify their rule when they follow international man made law of the United Nations instead of the laws of the Creator and the Lord of the Universe? What will you on the day of judgement? That you justified their rule based upon someone else’s view that the Ottoman state was destroyed in 1924?

b) The Uthmani Khilafah was originally ruling by Islam and was a legitimate Khilafah. What is an area of difference is when did it stop being the Khilafah? When did they fall into the ahadith which mention obedience to the Khalifah and rulers until they rule by open Kufr (Kufr Buwah). Was it in the late 1800’s when it adopted some Western laws or was it in 1924 when it was destroyed?

It has been narrated from many sources including Imam Muslim that the Prophet (saw) said, "Do not challenge the people of authority unless you see explicit Kufr of which you have clear proof from Allah(from Islam)".

The subject matter of the Hadith is when there is a government ruling by Islam and then you see an explicit Kufr from it - which has been referred to in this hadith as Kufr Buwah and in another hadith as Kufr Sareeh.

It is the view of some scholars that to match what is mentioned in the hadith it would have had not only to be non-Islamic laws but would have to be known as Kufr laws and then the rulers knowingly implement them. The case of the Ottoman state was that due to the decline in Ijtihad and knowledge, the Sheikh of Islam passed these laws as Islamic - due to ignorance. They apply the principle of Istishaab (following the original rule) mentioned in the books of Usul. It means the first hukm is resumed unless it is removed by certainty. Like the one who has wudhu and then he doubts if he has it so he continues in his wudhu and his (initial) certainty is not removed by the doubt. Therefore in their view it doesn't match what is mentioned in the hadith. HOWEVER IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY JUSTIFY THOSE LAWS AND SAY THEY WERE ISLAMIC.

As a simple example, if a Muslim out of ignorance says that wine is halal, they become Kafir automatically unless they do it with knowledge.

c) It is clear that Saudi Arabia and the other governments in the Muslim world were established by the colonialists and ruled by Kufr from the beginning. They were not a Khilafah in the first place. They have been continuously accounted by scholars and da'wah carriers for ruling by kufr and contradicting the definitive ahkam of Allah (swt). They disregard this and continue to rule by Kufr.

I don't want to keep regurgitating issues. Therefore unless any new issue is raised I will not respond to other questions on this same point.

Anonymous said...

You wrote
"As a simple example, if a Muslim out of ignorance says that wine is halal, they become Kafir automatically unless they do it with knowledge."

Did you mean thy don't become Kafir

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

yes you are right, I wrote that by mistake

Anonymous said...

For more questions & answers on this topic check:

Anonymous said...

assalaamo 3leikum,

your arguement is based on a great misconception.

and that is MAJOR SINS = KUFR

if a muslim who is upon the correct aqeedah of tawheed eats riba , drinks alcohol, and does all the sins they are bad muslims NOT kafirs.

secondly teh difference between the baathis & alawis vs saudis

is that the baathis are communist/socialist
teh alawis are a shia sect who are kuffar not because they dont implement shariah even if they did that would not make them muslims they are kaafirs due to their aqeedah

but the saudis are on the correct aqeedah and all their scholars make clear riba is haraaam and they have set up commitees to convert their banks to an islamic system in the near future inshAllah, but people like yo think these things happen like magic no its needs effort time and planning ... no one in saudi from the scholars are saying this is halaal.

even the rulers never said it is halaal

and lastly your lousy arguement that the saudis attacked iraq using the americans HELLO the iraqis attacked kuwait and were raping andd killing its innocents

the saudis used the amricans to stop them by attacking the ARMY and not innocent civilians PLUS the IRAQI ARMY WAS UNDER THE BAATHISTS remember

do you think the turkish army is considered a MUSLIM army

so if america kills teh turkish army are they killing a muslim army

however there may be muslims in the turkish army ( do you see the point) but sometimes the greater good must be done

and kuwait needed protection.

you seem to attack saudi alot dont you realize the enemey (IRAN) is closing its grip on the middle east and this is why saudi is pressured to maintain ties with americans


"The Islamic and non-Islamic powers of the world will not admit our power till such time that we establish our hold over Makkah and Madinah because these are the centers and citadels of Islam. Hence our domination over these places Is an essential requirement ... when as a conqueror I will enter Makkah and Madinah, the first thing to be done at that time by me would be to dig out two idols (Abu Bakr and Umar) lying by the side of the Prophet's grave."

ever thought why the shia are in power in Iraq ?

anyways you are so ignorant that you dont even know that iraq also attacked saudi arabia during the battle to liberate kuwait

and anyways today there are no american bases in saudi

shocking wow well yea so swallow that this is a fact the americans are based in QATAR and BAHRAIN

you dont even know that there are no american bases iin saudi today only some american traineees who teach saudis how to use war planes and tanks

and you are so naive that you go ahead and state that they are upon KUFR

you know that this is a huge statement!!

anyways all muslims love to see a return to the calpihate but there are many conditions

go learn more about your religion and stop misleading people to this ridiculous call for the caliphate without knowledge

knowledge always precedes action

but on your blog it seems like the opposite!

Anonymous said...

to Anonymous,

you said
"they have set up commitees to convert their banks to an islamic system in the near future inshAllah"
well, then you got it, inshAllah in the near future, Saudi Arabia will become an Islamic state, until then it will still remain a Kufr Capitalist (yes, Capitalist because Riba banking is the hallmark of the Capitalist aqeedah) state.

"and lastly your lousy arguement that the saudis attacked iraq using the americans HELLO the iraqis attacked kuwait and were raping andd killing its innocents"
Even, the mufti of Saudi of then, bin Baaz, who first gave permission to the King Fahd for allowing american bases retracted himself later and admitted he made a mistake.
By the way, the Saudi govt was so concerned with the welfare of Kuwaitis that this is why they have never waged Jihad against Israel in defense of Palestinian Muslims and Masjid Al Aqsa in the 60 years plus history.

May Allah (swt) make this Ummah follow Scholars who not only possess Ilm but also TAQWA, Ameen.

evision said...

mohd adil said...

In the above on your site you call Saudi a state of kufr. I say even if entire Saudi goes into consuming Alcohol, practicing Zina, usury etc. they cannot be called a state of kufr because they belief in Allah and consider Muhammad s.a.w as last Prophet.

Brother Why do you want to attain Khilafat by means of capture and domination of the state, Why not using Dawah can you convey the message to rulers of all muslim countries requesting 100% implementation of Sharia. Are the rulers not our are brothers or are they not muslims? Its just that Neither the efforts of all Prophets bore fruits instantly nor will your's but InshAllah gradually they will!

We all muslims not matter sinful or pious, good or bad are brothers.
Allah says in Quran 49:10: The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.

Please check this famous hadith:The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said : Help your brother whether he is a wrong-doer or is wronged. A man enquired: 'O Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , I may help him when he is wronged, but how can I help him when he is a wrong-doer? ' The Prophet (pbuh) said ' You can prevent him from wrong-doing. That will be your help to him' (Bukhari and Muslim)

Another Hadith: "Cursing a Muslim is a transgression, and fighting with him amounts to unbelief" (al-Bukhārī, "Īmān," 36).

He never wrongs him nor makes him devoid of his support. There is no greater offense for a Muslim than despising his Muslim brother" (al-Bukhārī, "Adab," 57–58; Muslim, "Birr," 28–34

What you feel is more important the removal of muslim rulers and establish of Khilafah or their reformation and establish of Khilafah? If reformation then what comes first self reformation or state reformation? Can the rulers reform the state till the time they are self reformed.

In my opinion using the Khilafat your are trying to address the symptoms and not the root, The root cause is that today we dont KNOW ALLAH, We love Dunya but not deen, our concern is maal and not a'maal, We love to imitate lifestyle of celebrities but not of Prophet s.a.w

Anonymous said...

What the argument here is whether rulling by any other rule than sharia its not about if Muslim rulers commit sins for exp if allah made something haram and the government made it halal thats kuffur. by the way people never ask why would saddom hussein would want to attack saudi Arabia. Saudi royal king Abdullah was on wiki leakes saying to the Americans of how close they are and that they spilt blood together .... know what blood should be ask Muslim blood of course

OOnoki said...

sheikh, can you please share to us the pdf file of Encyclopedia on "the History of the Human Race and its Scientific Development", which you mention above ?
Just to make sure. Syukran.

- Muslim Indonesia