Question: Is it permitted for us to seek our rights under a non-Islamic system, for example are we allowed to go through the courts under a Kufr system? If so, what are the conditions for this.
Answer:
1. The person has the right to demand for his right and to demand for removing the injustice away from him and to defend himself by proving his right and removing the injustice away from him. He has the right to delegate another person (such as a solicitor) to do that on his behalf.
2. Such right has to be approved by the Shar’a but not by the man-made law, and similarly the zulm (injustice) has to be proved likewise. Had a Muslim sold some alcohol and the purchaser did not pay him the price, this price would not be considered a right for the Muslim. Therefore it is wrong to demand of it, though it is (his) right according to the man-made law. Similarly if an insurance company did not pay to the insurer for an accident, i.e. did not compensate him and dealt with him unjustly, this would not be considered an unjust act falling on the insurer because shar’a does not approve of the insurance companies. Therefore it is wrong to make a claim for removing this zulm away from him and demand fair compensation. This rule applies to any similar cases.
3. It is haram upon the Muslim to make a court case demanding a right not proved by Shar’a. Nor to demand the removal of a zulm from him if not proved by the shar’a. Likewise the solicitor is not allowed to accept a case demanding a right or removing a zulm on behalf of his client if such right or zulm is not proved by the shar’a. Therefore, the trial made by a Muslim or his solicitor through presenting false evidence or using clever language and the like to obtain a right depending in that on man-made law or illegal means, all that is a crime in the view of Islam: and possessing a right through this way is possessing a piece of fire, as it comes in the Hadith.
Any defence presented by a Muslim or the solicitor that includes praise of the man-made law or its fairness or its legislator, all that involves such person doing so in sin, for all the man-made laws (other than the law of Allah) are invalid and oppressive (zaalim). The only thing allowed for the Muslim and the lawyer is to present the proofs, evidences and the arguments to support his rights and remove the zulm from him and defending himself, all this should be according to the truth (haqq) that Allah obliged.
4. Demanding of a right or removing a zulm away or the defense of a person or his solicitor to prove the right, remove away the zulm and providing the evidence and arguments in this regard as long as the Shar’a obliges such right and removing away of such zulm, all that is allowed in dar-al-Islam and in dar-ul-kufr due to the following evidences:
a. The texts that came regarding the defense of oneself, the property and the honour to the point of death (martyrdom), indicates the agreement (by mentioning the higher thus allowing the lower) on defending the right and proving it with the evidences and arguments and all the legal means. These texts have not been limited to dar-al-Islam to the exclusion of dar-al-kufr. So, these texts are used for both lands (dars).
b. The defense of the Muslims in Abyssinia of themselves before the Negus so as to not to hand them to the delegates of Quraish, and also proving the zulm of Quraish to them, and that they (the Muslims) were on the truth (haqq) and the delegates of Quraish were on falsehood.
c. The consent of the Messenger (saw) to the Muslims to live in Makkah, that is those who did not emigrate to Dar-al-Islam in Al-Madinah before the conquest of Makkah. This consent indicates by implication (iqtida’a) that it is allowed for them to demand their rights and to remove the zulm away from them; for this is what is required (necessary) by living in any society.
Answer:
1. The person has the right to demand for his right and to demand for removing the injustice away from him and to defend himself by proving his right and removing the injustice away from him. He has the right to delegate another person (such as a solicitor) to do that on his behalf.
2. Such right has to be approved by the Shar’a but not by the man-made law, and similarly the zulm (injustice) has to be proved likewise. Had a Muslim sold some alcohol and the purchaser did not pay him the price, this price would not be considered a right for the Muslim. Therefore it is wrong to demand of it, though it is (his) right according to the man-made law. Similarly if an insurance company did not pay to the insurer for an accident, i.e. did not compensate him and dealt with him unjustly, this would not be considered an unjust act falling on the insurer because shar’a does not approve of the insurance companies. Therefore it is wrong to make a claim for removing this zulm away from him and demand fair compensation. This rule applies to any similar cases.
3. It is haram upon the Muslim to make a court case demanding a right not proved by Shar’a. Nor to demand the removal of a zulm from him if not proved by the shar’a. Likewise the solicitor is not allowed to accept a case demanding a right or removing a zulm on behalf of his client if such right or zulm is not proved by the shar’a. Therefore, the trial made by a Muslim or his solicitor through presenting false evidence or using clever language and the like to obtain a right depending in that on man-made law or illegal means, all that is a crime in the view of Islam: and possessing a right through this way is possessing a piece of fire, as it comes in the Hadith.
Any defence presented by a Muslim or the solicitor that includes praise of the man-made law or its fairness or its legislator, all that involves such person doing so in sin, for all the man-made laws (other than the law of Allah) are invalid and oppressive (zaalim). The only thing allowed for the Muslim and the lawyer is to present the proofs, evidences and the arguments to support his rights and remove the zulm from him and defending himself, all this should be according to the truth (haqq) that Allah obliged.
4. Demanding of a right or removing a zulm away or the defense of a person or his solicitor to prove the right, remove away the zulm and providing the evidence and arguments in this regard as long as the Shar’a obliges such right and removing away of such zulm, all that is allowed in dar-al-Islam and in dar-ul-kufr due to the following evidences:
a. The texts that came regarding the defense of oneself, the property and the honour to the point of death (martyrdom), indicates the agreement (by mentioning the higher thus allowing the lower) on defending the right and proving it with the evidences and arguments and all the legal means. These texts have not been limited to dar-al-Islam to the exclusion of dar-al-kufr. So, these texts are used for both lands (dars).
b. The defense of the Muslims in Abyssinia of themselves before the Negus so as to not to hand them to the delegates of Quraish, and also proving the zulm of Quraish to them, and that they (the Muslims) were on the truth (haqq) and the delegates of Quraish were on falsehood.
c. The consent of the Messenger (saw) to the Muslims to live in Makkah, that is those who did not emigrate to Dar-al-Islam in Al-Madinah before the conquest of Makkah. This consent indicates by implication (iqtida’a) that it is allowed for them to demand their rights and to remove the zulm away from them; for this is what is required (necessary) by living in any society.
Comments
Some of the Hanafi scholars of Syria say that car insurance in the UK is haram (and their reasoning does seem to make sense).
What is the adoption on this? Should the da'wah carriers be driving at all?
JazakAllah khair.
All forms of insurance are haram please for further info check:
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/prohibition-of-insurance-in-islam.html
In order to drive, Muslims must look for halal ways out.
ws
I was discussing today with one brother about what happenbed to the Egyptian headscarf martyr. He said the fact that she went to a German court to get the German man fined (which is the law of Taghut) has tainted her case and he refused to say that she was Shaahid (he even applied that she might have been a Kaafir because she went to seek the law of Taghut). He pointed me to a fatwa by some sheikh saying it is categorically haraam to seek the judgement of Taghut.
This is a totally incorrect understanding. It is allowed permitted for a Muslim to seek their legitimate rights as the Sahabha did when they went to the court the Najashi, the Christian ruler in Abyssiania - as is explained in the Q&A.
a brother asked me the question about seeking ones rights in a non islamic system and I wanted to refer to this article. It'd be nice if you could give us the name of the scholar who gave this fatwa...
barakallahu feek...
Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom (ra)
barakallahu feek for your quick answer.It would be great if you could refer(give us the names) to the ulema in all of your articles and especially in the Q&As....
Q 2) “ Any defence presented by a Muslim or the solicitor that includes praise of the man-made law or its fairness or its legislator - Ref. this does it mean here that a lawyer can not address the judge by “ Your Honour” or addressed the court as “Honuorable court” ?
1) Seeking bail is a legitimate right under the shar'a as in Islam a person is innocent until proven guilty so quoting their own laws regarding this legitimate right is not a problem.
2) There is no problem addressing the court and the judge with their titles such as your honour. This is not a praise of man made law it is simply using a title or utilising a term in a linguistic sense such as your justice. The Prophet (saw) and the sahaba called the Negus a just King even when he was a non-Muslim, they used the term in a linguistic manner.
If a women is raped this is an attack on her honour, as the Q&A explains that from the principle of babal awla (greater reasoning) from the hadith the one who fights and dies protecting their own dies a shaheed thus seeking such rights is permitted in dar al kufr or dar al islam. However the women is not permitted to tell the court to punish the criminal with their laws, she can simply state the facts of what was done to her. If the court decides a punishment other than the shar'a punishment this is their liability so she is not liable for that.
Therefore the case is different for a lawyer either prosecution or defence in such criminal cases - it is not permitted for Muslims to take such jobs as it would inevitably mean attempting to prosecute people according to laws other than the shariah or defend peoples illegitimate rights.