Muslims Living in Non-Muslim Lands

Discussion in 'Identity, Activism and Unity' started by Abu Hafsa, Jan 23, 2007.

  1. Abu Hafsa

    Abu Hafsa New Member

    Muslims Living in Non-Muslim Lands

    by Shaykh Salmaan bin Fahd Al-`Awdah - Source: IslamToday

    As-salaamu `alaykum wa raHmatullaahee wa barakaatuhu,

    A number of Muslims who reside in the Western Countries (studying, working, seeking protection or for other reasons) were asking for an explanation regarding the extent to which they should observe and comply with laws and regulations of these countries, about the blood of the disbeliever and how to deal with them in general.

    Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his companions had been ordered to emigrate from Makkah to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) where there was a king under whose rule no one was subject to oppression or tyranny.

    Thus, a Muslim who is in need of emigration, shelter or resort has to compare the available options and choose the one in which he, his religion, his family and his money are the most adequately secure.

    In his choice, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preferred Abyssinia to other places as Muslims would enjoy security and stability during their settlement there.

    Abyssinia was known to be under a fair king (Najashi) who was not a Muslim at that time though later he was reported to have embraced Islam. The whole story of his journey to Islam up to his death can be found in the collections of Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim along with the narrations of the Prophet Muhammad's performance of the absentee prayer for him (peace be upon him).

    The above mentioned story was narrated via Abu Hurayrah in the Two Correct Books of Bukhaari and Muslim and other books of authority as well.

    Muslims dwelling in foreign countries are thought to have followed one of two ways: 1. By means of a valid visa with correct personal information, 2. By means of forged documents.

    Either way, he is considered contracting and agreeing to rules adopted in this country and he has to comply with them. This implies the fulfillment of the promises he obliged himself with since he first agrees to stay and dwell in these countries.

    Allaah the Almighty said: "Oh you who believe! Fulfill the obligations" [al-Maa'ida 5:1]

    And said: "and fulfill (every) covenant. Verily! The covenant will be questioned about." [al-Israa' 17:34]

    And said: "And fulfill the Covenant to Allaah (pledge for Islam) when you have enjoined it, and break not the oaths after you have confirmed them." [an-Nahl 16:91]

    Reflecting upon the above verses, a Muslim is not to break or violate oaths or promises. He will not be a true faithful Muslim at that time.

    Allaah Said: "Is it not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throw it aside? Nay! The truth is that most of them believe not." [al-Baqarah 2:100]

    Talking about the characteristics of hypocrites, "the one who acts treacherously toward covenants, and when entrusted he betrays."

    Some preceding scholars stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to stick to their respective rules and regulations even if they illegally entered. There is no excuse accepted for breaking these rules as he has been primarily entrusted the time he was allowed to enter. Imaam Muhammad bin Hasan ash-Shaybaani [Biographies 2/6)]

    He said: "if it happens that a company of Muslims came to the enemies front troops and deceptively pretended to be messengers of the Muslims' Khaleefah with the order of handing over some documents, or just were allowed to pass through the enemies areas, they are not entitled to kill any from the enemy's troops. Neither are they entitled to take any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. This also applies in case of being truly entrusted by the other party."

    Accordingly we conclude the following:

    1. Muslims in foreign countries must comply with rules and regulations of the country they have been entrusted to enter though valid visas. On the other hand, they have to avoid whatever contradicts the Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged, they have to stick to the minimum of these rules and as need be.

    One of the best protective methods for an emigrant Muslim is patience. As long as he agreed to leave Islamic areas to non-Islamic ones, he is not to revolt against his choice even if it looks too hard for him to endure.

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told Huthayfa and his father on the occasion that they were under their promise now to fight their own kith and kin, "Go back, we are to fulfill our promise and call Allaah for help"

    Hudaibiyah Reconciliation: (Bukhaari : 5/411) The story of Abu Baseer (May Allaah Be Pleased with him): The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told : "O Aba Baseer, you know what we have reconciled with these people upon and we are not ones to betray or break oaths, so go back to your people." He then inquired: "Do you mean to send me back to disbelievers that might torture and rid me of my religion?"

    The Prophet answered: "Be patient and sacrifice it in anticipation of Allaah's reward Who surely will relieve you and make you a way out from this situation."

    2. Blood, money and honor are forbidden areas for a Muslim to violate or trespass as an emigrant for the following:

    We have mentioned above that basically a Muslim is primarily entrusted the time he first got valid visa entry to such countries. Accordingly, he is not thought to be dishonest or aggressive. Consequently he is not expected to do any act of betrayal or disloyalty and he should be acting as expected.


    a. The story narrated by Al-Mughira ibn Shu`ba in Bukhaari that before Islam he killed his company and took over their money. After that he came to Islam. On hearing the story, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told him: "We accept you as a new Muslim. As for the money it is regarded as the outcome of disloyalty and this is not our way." Ibn Hajar explained in FatH al-Baari (5/402): "Out of this Hadeeth, we conclude that we are not entitled to take over the non-Muslims' money at the time of peace. Fellowship is supposed to be based upon honesty. And a Muslim must fulfill his promises towards others whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim." He continued: "The property and wealth of the non-Muslims are only legal through legitimate battling and fighting (Jihaad for the sake of Allaah)."

    b. Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee (May Allaah Have mercy on him) in Al-Umm (4/284): "In case we are in a battle time and one of the Muslims has received permission and has been entrusted to enter the enemy's territory, he is not entitled to take over any of their properties or money be it small or great. That is because he asked for security and was granted it. They are also supposed to enjoy the same from him. Besides being under their protection entitles them to be as equally protected as Muslims should be just like free non-Muslims enjoying Muslims protection."

    c. as-Sarkhasi in Al-Mabsoot (10/96) said: I hate to see the Muslim betraying the non-Muslims while he is under their protection. Betrayal is illegal according to the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): "Every traitor and cheat will come forth on Doomsday with the description of his treachery upon his backside. And if he acted treacherously and managed to take some of their money back to the Muslim lands, I hate that other Muslims should have any deals with him in case he knows the source of this money that it is illicitly gained."

    d. Ibn Qudaamah in Al-Mughni (9/237): It is said regarding one who enters the land of the enemy with amnesty that they should not be devious with their property, nor should they engage in Usury. Regarding the forbiddance of usury in the lands of war, we have already mentioned in (the section of) "Usury", with the statement of Allaah ta`aala: "..and usury has been forbidden to you". All of the Qur'anic verses and narrations which testify to the fact that usury is forbidden deal with it for all places and all times.

    Regarding deceiving them, this is forbidden. This is because amnesty has been granted upon the pretext that deceit will be abandoned, and that their safety from you will be secured. Even though this understanding may not be established verbally, it is known implicitly. Likewise, if someone from them came to us under amnesty, and deceived us, then they have invalidated their treaty. Even if this has been substantiated, then it does not make deception towards them permissible. For this is treachery, and treachery can not be made compatible with our Deen (Islaam). Verily, the Prophet (peace be upon him) has said, "The Muslims are bound by their condition"

    So if he has deceived them, stolen from them, or borrowed anything from them, it is compulsory for him to return what he took to their respective owners. If the owner arrives into the lands of Islaam under amnesty or in faith, return it to him unless its delivery to him has been arranged. For these goods were taken under a pretext wherein taking them was forbidden. Therefore, it becomes incumbent that the pilfered goods be returned as if they were taken from a Muslim.

    It has been reported in both two correct books Saheeh al-Bukhaari & Muslim via ibn Abbaas (May Allaah be Pleased with them):

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sent Mu`aath to Yemen while they were still non-Muslims (they were People of the Book). He recommended that he should invite them to Islam. Then he said: "Beware the supplication of the oppressed ones! There is no barrier between such a supplication and Allaah!"

    Out of this we can say that there are no legal support for such wrong doing against non-Muslims.

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), along with the ones who responded to his call, stayed in Makkah 13 years and never permitted any of them to plunder any wealth or property of the non-Muslims, nor did he permit any bloodshed or blemish of honor until he emigrated. Muslims were deemed weak, underestimated and disparaged in Makkah. Notwithstanding, they were not allowed to practice any kind of wrongdoings of the kind mentioned above.

    Neither the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), nor the companions were reported to have authorized or empowered any Muslim to take over the property or money of others. Overtaking and robbing is cruelty, villainy and lowliness. It is considered ill conduct as well. The one used to it will never be able to abstain doing so thereafter. It will be part and parcel of his attitude and disposition.

    3. Islam's Reputation and Tone- It is one of the lofty aims of the Muslim to keep the reputation of Islam intact. Sacrificing this aim for a handful of money or something one might long for or desire can never be excused. Especially if coming out of those whom we believe to be adhering to Islam and its teachings.

    Describing the true believer Allaah says: "Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the polytheists and wrongdoers and save us by your Mercy from the disbelieving folk". [Surah Yunus]

    That is exactly what a Muslim should be acting accord to. He should be appealing to Allaah to save him from the plights of the disbelievers. At the same time, he shouldn't be acting wrongly reflecting a defamed image about Islam.

    How is it possible that a Muslim will call others to embrace Islam and his hand stealthily pilfers their money or is consorting with their daughters? Who can confirm or approve such behaviour? What kind of morals are these? What kind of reason would endorse it? What kind of legal perception can this be classified? No wonder then, that their media triumphantly invests such efforts on discrediting the image of Islam!

    4. It is of the Lord's comfort and ease to His slaves that some of these countries give immigrants the freedom to reside and work freely. They also give them facilities that might not be given in their homeland.

    In case these immigrants begin to show indifference to society, break oaths and betray their entrusted residential agreements, thereby, frightening the citizens of that country, they will be deprived of it sooner or later.

    5. Consequently, A Muslim is exposing both himself and his family to imprisonment or expulsion or further trouble. Why then should a Muslim humiliate himself with for no good reason? He should not expose his family or those under his care to trial (fitnah). He might be incarcerated leaving his family alone without support.

    6. It is easily perceived that deeming money and the property of others legal to pilfer would soon go further to regard the honour of others as being lawful as well. It is an obscene filthy slip. Soon, it will be an insatiable madness that can't be put out.

    The same applies to bloodshed that might generally affect the condition of all Muslim residents there and act as a barrier for others to find such a refuge.

    At least, we can regard such behavior as careless and reckless. Muslims must keep away and be careful of it. In both Bukhaari and Muslim it says, "The one who avoids ambiguity and uncertainity, is relieved in both religion and honor."

    In another Hadeeth: "Sin is that thing which you hate in your heart and would hate others to know about. No doubt, the one who is doing such deeds is hesitant and hateful that anyone should discover it."

    To me, it doesn't seem to be an carelessness and recklessness. I consider it purely illegal and unlawful. It emerges out of lust and according to one's own desires and inclination for an easier and lighter way of living.

    Allaah did not enjoin reaching success by means of illegal ways. It is clearly understood that if legal facilities might lead to illegal consequences, that legal thing is considered illegal. In our issue here, all evidences prove it illegal, as well as the scholars' verdicts about its illegality as well.

    Finally, these were some of the evidences that support the viewpoint of forbidding the undertaking such deeds. If reasonably pondered upon by the public, and moreover the Muslim, it would support its restriction and unlawfulness.

    We ask Allaah to guide us and all the Muslims to the correct path by word and deed.

    And Allaah Knows the Best,

    Shaykh Salmaan bin Fahd Al-`Awdah

  2. Abu Hafsa

    Abu Hafsa New Member

    The Issue Isn't As Simple As You Think:

    The Issue Isn't As Simple As You Think:

    "Pay attention to this issue. I never paid it much attention until after I'd studied it this year in the books of Fiqh, while I was studying the issues of Jihad, pacts, and promises of security. If you are given a visa to any country in the world, it is not allowed for you to partake in any action that breaks its laws. This is not allowed, unless this would contradict something from Islam, such as the prayer, fasting, etc. It is not allowed for you to cheat them or take from their wealth. It is not allowed, for example, for you to take one of their daughters, and marry her without the permission of her father. It is not allowed for you to rip up a telephone bill. It is not allowed for you to harm the state, and it is not allowed for you to place a magnet on the electric meter of your home. It is not allowed for you to tear up your phone bill, because there, in America, and in the Western nations, despite their disbelief and enmity towards Islam and the Muslims, they place trust in the individual. They generally treat the human being with a strange level of respect (compared to the treatment in the Muslim lands)...

    One of the brothers - a Muslim youth - told me about his trip to attain a doctorate in America. He said: "They sent me both my electric and phone bills. So, I said to them: "I wish to pay what I have due." They replied: "No problem. Return to your home country, and we will give you an address to which you can send your payment from your country."" Can you imagine? He said to them: "I wish to leave this land," and they reply: "No problem. Go back to Jordan, and send your payment from there."

    Trust! Security!...The Arab, in America, if his business is about to fail, he would burn down his factory, go to the insurance company, tell them that his factory was burned down, and he would rake in the million dollars that he had insured his factory with."

    (A brother in the audience debates): "But, Shaykh, this was even there before, when Islam had strength and reputation, and Abu Hanifah said that if a Muslim breaks something of a Christian's, the Muslim must insure him."

    Shaykh: "Even now, he must insure him."

    Brother: "However, now, they come to our lands mostly to spread their ideology."

    Shaykh: "My brother, who has brought them into our lands?"

    Brother: "A disbeliever, like them."

    Shaykh: "OK, excellent. You say to them that the one who has brought you into this land is a disbeliever. Therefore, you cannot be here...You must warn them, is this not so? Either Islam, or the jizyah, or the sword. Is this not so? So, you must warn them, my brother. Send them a message: 'You are spreading this evil, so, leave this land. Otherwise, you will die.' That's it. After this, kill him. As for coming to kill him while he is secure and under a pact of security, this is not allowed.

    As for those People of the Book who live with us in our lands, it is not allowed to kill them in our times, unless they initiate fighting with us. It is not allowed, as this will cause great fitnah that will never end, and the rulers will stand on their side, and they will attack the Muslims, and put pressure on the Islamic movement - all for what? Because of you poking out the eye of a Christian in your land, or you killed a Christian, resulting in tens of Muslims being killed in prison as the result of torture..."

    (The brother continues debating)

    Shaykh: "It is not allowed for you to take the wealth of a Christian, at all. It is not allowed to kill the Western Christian in the lands of the Muslims, unless you first issue him a warning, and unless it first becomes clear to you that he is engaging in an act that deems his blood lawful. Understood?"

    Another questioner asks: "Who is the one that determines what the actions are that deem his blood lawful? Do I determine this? Or do the scholars?"

    Shaykh: "The scholars. The scholars are the ones who determine this. Where do fatawa come from? From the scholars - do you kill, or do you not kill? Is it permissible to kill and fight them? Or, do you go on your way? As for - by Allah - a youth who studied one or two words in 'Kifayat al-Akhyar,' or 'Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin,' or the book of Ibn al-Qayyim (he's referring to 'Ahkam Ahl adh-Dhimmah'), and he suddenly becomes the Great Mufti of Islam, issuing fatawa to {"Kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from whence they expelled you..."} or {"When the Sacred Months have passed, slay the polytheists wherever you find them..."}, this is not allowed. The issue isn't as simple as you think, and this is what Jama'at at-Takfir wal-Hijrah was afflicted with. This shaykh - their leader, Shukri Mustafa, rahimahullah - began issuing fatawa, and every single one began reading and issuing fatawa declaring the blood of the Muslims lawful..."

    (The brother continues debating, mentioning that the Christians of our times are all muharibin)

    Shaykh: "Who are the Christians that are muharibin?"

    Brother: "All of the Christians are muharibin."

    Shaykh: "How are they all muharibin?"

    Brother: "Those who put the covering on their head, and wear the cross."

    Shaykh: "The one who wears the cross is a muharib? The one who wears the cross, this is his belief."

    (The brother continues arguing)

    Shaykh: "My brother, do you still consider them muharibin? The muharib is the one who brandishes weapons against the Muslims!"

    (after some more arguement): "I will not give a fatwa for this. Look for some other mufti besides myself."

    ['Fi Dhilal Surat at-Tawbah'; p. 132-134]
  3. nomad

    nomad muslim female

    Assalamu alaykum,

    This is for the emmigrant. What about the non emmigrant, whom finds himself on the recieving end of their hatred. Is he allowed to engage in all the activities listed above, that is not allowed for the emmigrant? There are many, many muslims in non muslim countries, whom are from that country. Is there a ruling for them?

    And go back and read point 5 of the fatwa. He states

    5. Consequently, A Muslim is exposing both himself and his family to imprisonment or expulsion or further trouble. Why then should a Muslim humiliate himself with for no good reason? He should not expose his family or those under his care to trial (fitnah). He might be incarcerated leaving his family alone without support.

    Also, if you are familiar with the taking of constantinople, there were many muslims whom went inside the wall and took up employment to get information about the situation within the walls, imposing as locals. Was that wrong to do so? They emmigrated for the reason of gaining information for the war. If a man emmigrates for that reason, can he indulge in the above activities?

    The fatwa is incomplete.

    salams nomad
  4. you think a kafir will give you something for free.
    muslims in america live good for dunya, the majority of them have mortgages, high interest credit cards, car loan. they give you one little thing and will take more from you with interest.
    insurance money is haraam, brother nomad was kind to call that fatwa incomplete. i will call it dodgy and corrupt.
    as for the visa, it's the biggest tool of racism and inequality. the visa system is invinted for the rich countries to look after themselves and shut down others after accumulating wealth dishonestly from poor countries. i will say this scholar doesnt have a clue about visa policies.
    in almost all the countries of the world,british passport holder doesnt need a visa, why? i think only china and north korea that a brit will need a visa. a nigerian will need visa to uk, an australian doesn and they both belong to the commonwealth. can you explain that? this fatwa encourage institutional racism.
    i will hide a muslim illegal immigrant in my house anytime and help if i can in sha Allah.

    this fatwa is from a wicked scholar

    w'Allahu musta'an
  5. i live in a muslim country.
    when it comes to trust you are also wrong.
    here you can eat at a restaurant and pay later, something if you try in the west they will call the police even if they know you.
    my son calls it food bank, he can eat what he likes and i will pay later.
    if you owe an arab money he's too shy to ask you. you can leave your car with ignition key on , you go and come back to find it. please do that in the west.
    the western countries are better organised and most arabs have mentality that's not compatible to islam, some or most dont even practice deen.
    but.... islam is part of culture, there is trust, decency, patience.
    an arab wouldnt beat you up if you fail to pay up even if he needs his money back so bad.
    there are goods and bad from both side, i just wish muslim countries could educate themselves to get organised. then if we make hijra we wouldnt have to miss anything
  6. Abu_Abdillah2000

    Abu_Abdillah2000 New Member

    Please mind your adab when talking about the mashayikh. Disagree with shaykh Salman if you want, but there is no need to call him a "wicked scholar". Perhaps you could contact himself yourself if you need him to clarify anything, I'm sure he'll have no problem with that.
  7. i didnt bother you read who wrote it.
    and this is not the time to fake adab in front of a scholar.
    the prophet( pbuh) said: who ever believe in Allah and the day of judgement should speak the truth or keep quiet.
    why would any scholar deserve my adab if he doesnt do any of the 2.
    if you feel like considering the fatwa please help yourself
  8. i actually expected better from salman al awda.... i honestly thought this was a fatwa from a madkhalee.
    he doesnt have knowledge of life in the west therefore he should leave scholars in the west who are also immigrants to make fatwa.
    immigration system is unislamic and oppressive, arab countries even do worse when it comes to treating foreigners from the third world. a kafir from europe is better treated than a muslim from asia or africa.
    some arab government also charge high fees if your visa expires, that money is pure haraam. how can you charge a fee for overstay and if you dont pay they wont let you leave.
    finally i will just say that the sheikh is ignorant on this issue regarding immigration or migration.

    i totally disagree with him on this one
  9. 'man samatan najja' saint . learn '101:ettiquetes of disagreement.'
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2007
  10. trn2allah

    trn2allah Active Member

  11. Purification

    Purification <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Re: The Issue Isn't As Simple As You Think:

    This is a great proof that Sheikh al-Mujahid Abdullah Azzam is different from Qaida.
  12. musslim

    musslim Active Member

    Re: The Issue Isn't As Simple As You Think:

    above post - sorry you lost me there - please could you clarify?

Share This Page