One of the most prolific topics of our time that I personally feel needs to be shined in today's modern world given the phenomenal circumstances we find ourselves in today with the preposterous Hegelian dialectical battlefield known as the "War on Terror" all of which includes the proliferation of misinformation through psy-ops in media from both the extremists liberal side of western powers along with the extremists totalitarian pro-Najdi based militaristic Muslim groups and their supporters is the topic of how is the Muslim to treat the "infidel" or in a more normative fashion, what is the relationship and ethics of how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands?
That is the BIG question for the masses of common people. Typically the answers are skewed in rhetoric enveloped in extreme liberal dogma on the Muslim side or extremists rhetoric impugned on Muslims by the right wing factions in the American paradigm. This is actually quite simple in classical traditionalists Islam that seems to get no coverage whatsoever.
The answer is quite simple. So what is the exact relationship a Muslim should or must have when dealing with non Muslims IN A COUNTRY (state or polity) THAT IS AT WAR with Muslims.
The answer.......
Ibnul-Mundhir (318 ah), and he is Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibraheem Ibnul-Mundhir an-Naysaburi, the great jurist of the third Islamic century, one of thee most influential jurist of Islamic law ever, uncontested. There is no theological sect in existence in Sunni Islam except that while many of them oppose Ibnul-Mundir's Sunni Athari beliefs, they are all agreed to his primacy in the field of jurisprudence.
Ibnul-Mundhir says in his book "al-Awsat fi-Sunan wal-Ijm'a wal-Ikhtilaaf" that the Imams
"ash-Shafi'ee, al-Awzaa'i, and Ahmad viewed it impermissible for a Muslim to betray the people of Darul-Harb when the Muslim enters their land with a covenant of safety and security"
Allahu Akbar. Allow me to explain the "darul-harb" compound statement here for the not so Islamically inclined. The statement "darul-harb" is a powerful statement in Islamic law. It doesnt just mean a disbelieving state (darul-kufr). It actually has a more serious connotation, that being a state that is at war with the Muslim state. A state that is at war with the Muslim state will undoubtedly have more graver reactions by the Muslim state and by Muslims more naturally than simply just a non-Muslim state.
And yet here, in this very juristic statement above along with the basis of this article, taking into account this rather serious matter of war, the topic of discussion is the Muslim treatment of inhabitants in a nation (country/state) that is in a state of war with a Muslim state or the entirety of Muslim states or the Muslim nation.
Ibnul-Mundhir says
"If a (Muslim) man enters darul-harb with a covenant of security, then he is safe from them based on their agreement of security and they are also safe from him. Thus it is not allowed for him to betray them, CAUSE FEAR TO THEM, or kill them. If he takes anything from them, he has to return it back to them and if he takes anything with him back to Darul-Islam, he has to give it back. A Muslim should neither purchase such (taken) property nor destroy it because the wealth and property has a trust"
Ibnul-Qudaamah al-Hanbali, another profound jurist of Islam, brings forth this topic in his monumental work of jurisprudence, "al-Mughni" and he quotes al-Khirqi al-Hanbali.
Ibnul-Qudaamah says
جاء قي متن الخرقي الحنبلي {من دخل ارض العدو لم يخنهم}"
"It is found in the text of al-Khirqi al-Hanbali, 'Whoever enters the land if the enemy should not betray them'"
Meaning betray the covenant or agreement with them.
Im not going to type up the arabic as it is too long, but ibnul-Qudaamah comments on this and says
"...and as for betraying them, then jt is prohibited because they gave him the covenant of safety and security on the condition that he will neither betray them or harm them even if this was not written therein since this is known contextually. Thus whoever gained a covenant of safety and security into our countries and betrayed us, then it is as if he withdrew his covenant. And thus, if this was true, then it is prohibited to betray them because our religion prohibits betrayal. In this respect, the Prophet (Muhammad صلي الله عليه و سلم ) said "....the Muslims must stick to their conditions"
This hadeeth is saheeh and it is reported by Abu Dawud in his sunan and narrated by Abu Hurayrah.
As for this commentary by Ibnul-Qudaamah, he bring it in the book of Jihad (literally a chapter in his book al-Mughni) and under "the Issue of entering the land of the enemy with an agreement/covenant of safety and security"
Lastly, the great Hanafi scholar and jurist Abul-Hasan Ali ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abdul-Jaleel al-Marghiyaani, the uncontested Imam and scholar of jurisprudence of his time stated the following.
"If a Muslim enters darul-harb as a trader (merchant/businessman), then he is like a Muslim who is must'amin in darul-harb and it is therefore not allowed for him to dishonor them in anything in terms of their wealth AND BLOOD as he is within Ist'iman which necessitates that he does not dishonor them. If he dishonors them after this, then this is betrayal and betrayal is prohibited."
This content above is radically different from the touted calls in the media as to what Muslims believe in and what their own Islamic legislation calls to.
Let this post be a living testament to all the false Orwellian propaganda being distributed by the plethora of ideologically opposed groups in the world and their reviews as to what Muslims believe and what their own Quranic law advocates.
Comments